--- /dev/null
+From de5540d088fe97ad583cc7d396586437b32149a5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
+Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:24:43 +0100
+Subject: padata: avoid race in reordering
+
+From: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
+
+commit de5540d088fe97ad583cc7d396586437b32149a5 upstream.
+
+Under extremely heavy uses of padata, crashes occur, and with list
+debugging turned on, this happens instead:
+
+[87487.298728] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 882 at lib/list_debug.c:33
+__list_add+0xae/0x130
+[87487.301868] list_add corruption. prev->next should be next
+(ffffb17abfc043d0), but was ffff8dba70872c80. (prev=ffff8dba70872b00).
+[87487.339011] [<ffffffff9a53d075>] dump_stack+0x68/0xa3
+[87487.342198] [<ffffffff99e119a1>] ? console_unlock+0x281/0x6d0
+[87487.345364] [<ffffffff99d6b91f>] __warn+0xff/0x140
+[87487.348513] [<ffffffff99d6b9aa>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4a/0x50
+[87487.351659] [<ffffffff9a58b5de>] __list_add+0xae/0x130
+[87487.354772] [<ffffffff9add5094>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x70
+[87487.357915] [<ffffffff99eefd66>] padata_reorder+0x1e6/0x420
+[87487.361084] [<ffffffff99ef0055>] padata_do_serial+0xa5/0x120
+
+padata_reorder calls list_add_tail with the list to which its adding
+locked, which seems correct:
+
+spin_lock(&squeue->serial.lock);
+list_add_tail(&padata->list, &squeue->serial.list);
+spin_unlock(&squeue->serial.lock);
+
+This therefore leaves only place where such inconsistency could occur:
+if padata->list is added at the same time on two different threads.
+This pdata pointer comes from the function call to
+padata_get_next(pd), which has in it the following block:
+
+next_queue = per_cpu_ptr(pd->pqueue, cpu);
+padata = NULL;
+reorder = &next_queue->reorder;
+if (!list_empty(&reorder->list)) {
+ padata = list_entry(reorder->list.next,
+ struct padata_priv, list);
+ spin_lock(&reorder->lock);
+ list_del_init(&padata->list);
+ atomic_dec(&pd->reorder_objects);
+ spin_unlock(&reorder->lock);
+
+ pd->processed++;
+
+ goto out;
+}
+out:
+return padata;
+
+I strongly suspect that the problem here is that two threads can race
+on reorder list. Even though the deletion is locked, call to
+list_entry is not locked, which means it's feasible that two threads
+pick up the same padata object and subsequently call list_add_tail on
+them at the same time. The fix is thus be hoist that lock outside of
+that block.
+
+Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
+Acked-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
+Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+
+---
+ kernel/padata.c | 5 +++--
+ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
+
+--- a/kernel/padata.c
++++ b/kernel/padata.c
+@@ -189,19 +189,20 @@ static struct padata_priv *padata_get_ne
+
+ reorder = &next_queue->reorder;
+
++ spin_lock(&reorder->lock);
+ if (!list_empty(&reorder->list)) {
+ padata = list_entry(reorder->list.next,
+ struct padata_priv, list);
+
+- spin_lock(&reorder->lock);
+ list_del_init(&padata->list);
+ atomic_dec(&pd->reorder_objects);
+- spin_unlock(&reorder->lock);
+
+ pd->processed++;
+
++ spin_unlock(&reorder->lock);
+ goto out;
+ }
++ spin_unlock(&reorder->lock);
+
+ if (__this_cpu_read(pd->pqueue->cpu_index) == next_queue->cpu_index) {
+ padata = ERR_PTR(-ENODATA);