On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:59 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> I bisected this down to the addition of the proxy_ops into tracefs for
> lockdown. It appears that the allocation of the proxy_ops and then freeing
> it in the destroy_inode callback, is causing havoc with the memory system.
> Reading the documentation about destroy_inode and talking with Linus about
> this, this is buggy and wrong.
Can you still add the explanation about the inode memory leak to this message?
Right now it just says "it's buggy and wrong". True. But doesn't
explain _why_ it is buggy and wrong.
Linus
