4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Corey Minyard cminyard@mvista.com
commit 392a17b10ec4320d3c0e96e2a23ebaad1123b989 upstream.
When I set the timeout to a specific value such as 500ms, the timeout event will not happen in time due to the overflow in function check_msg_timeout: ... ent->timeout -= timeout_period; if (ent->timeout > 0) return; ...
The type of timeout_period is long, but ent->timeout is unsigned long. This patch makes the type consistent.
Reported-by: Weilong Chen chenweilong@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard cminyard@mvista.com Tested-by: Weilong Chen chenweilong@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
--- drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c @@ -4029,7 +4029,8 @@ smi_from_recv_msg(ipmi_smi_t intf, struc }
static void check_msg_timeout(ipmi_smi_t intf, struct seq_table *ent, - struct list_head *timeouts, long timeout_period, + struct list_head *timeouts, + unsigned long timeout_period, int slot, unsigned long *flags, unsigned int *waiting_msgs) { @@ -4042,8 +4043,8 @@ static void check_msg_timeout(ipmi_smi_t if (!ent->inuse) return;
- ent->timeout -= timeout_period; - if (ent->timeout > 0) { + if (timeout_period < ent->timeout) { + ent->timeout -= timeout_period; (*waiting_msgs)++; return; } @@ -4109,7 +4110,8 @@ static void check_msg_timeout(ipmi_smi_t } }
-static unsigned int ipmi_timeout_handler(ipmi_smi_t intf, long timeout_period) +static unsigned int ipmi_timeout_handler(ipmi_smi_t intf, + unsigned long timeout_period) { struct list_head timeouts; struct ipmi_recv_msg *msg, *msg2;