perf: Fix signed comparison in perf_adjust_period()

commit f6ab91add6355e231e1c47897027b2a6ee4fa268 upstream.

Frederic reported that frequency driven swevents didn't work properly
and even caused a division-by-zero error.

It turns out there are two bugs, the division-by-zero comes from a
failure to deal with that in perf_calculate_period().

The other was more interesting and turned out to be a wrong comparison
in perf_adjust_period(). The comparison was between an s64 and u64 and
got implicitly converted to an unsigned comparison. The problem is
that period_left is typically < 0, so it ended up being always true.

Cure this by making the local period variables s64.

Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>

diff --git a/kernel/perf_event.c b/kernel/perf_event.c
index f3a7003eb5cd54cd8cc975446b5e150ff2d02f38..fbbe79bf4efd4bae07f61dda96cf8cfbf278c454 100644 (file)
--- a/kernel/perf_event.c
+++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
@@ -1417,13 +1417,16 @@ do {                                    \
                divisor = nsec * frequency;
        }
 
+       if (!divisor)
+               return dividend;
+
        return div64_u64(dividend, divisor);
 }
 
 static void perf_adjust_period(struct perf_event *event, u64 nsec, u64 count)
 {
        struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
-       u64 period, sample_period;
+       s64 period, sample_period;
        s64 delta;
 
        period = perf_calculate_period(event, nsec, count);