[PATCH 4.16 07/26] posix-cpu-timers: Ensure set_process_cpu_timer is always evaluated

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

4.16-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>

commit c3bca5d450b620dd3d36e14b5e1f43639fd47d6b upstream.

Commit a9445e47d897 ("posix-cpu-timers: Make set_process_cpu_timer()
more robust") moved the check into the 'if' statement. Unfortunately,
it did so on the right side of an && which means that it may get short
circuited and never evaluated. This is easily reproduced with:

$ cat loop.c
void main() {
  struct rlimit res;
  /* set the CPU time limit */
  getrlimit(RLIMIT_CPU,&res);
  res.rlim_cur = 2;
  res.rlim_max = 2;
  setrlimit(RLIMIT_CPU,&res);

  while (1);
}

Which will hang forever instead of being killed. Fix this by pulling the
evaluation out of the if statement but checking the return value instead.

Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1568337
Fixes: a9445e47d897 ("posix-cpu-timers: Make set_process_cpu_timer() more robust")
Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Max R . P . Grossmann" <m@max.pm>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180417215742.2521-1-labbott@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

---
 kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c |    4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
+++ b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
@@ -1205,10 +1205,12 @@ void set_process_cpu_timer(struct task_s
 			   u64 *newval, u64 *oldval)
 {
 	u64 now;
+	int ret;
 
 	WARN_ON_ONCE(clock_idx == CPUCLOCK_SCHED);
+	ret = cpu_timer_sample_group(clock_idx, tsk, &now);
 
-	if (oldval && cpu_timer_sample_group(clock_idx, tsk, &now) != -EINVAL) {
+	if (oldval && ret != -EINVAL) {
 		/*
 		 * We are setting itimer. The *oldval is absolute and we update
 		 * it to be relative, *newval argument is relative and we update