Hi David, On 2024/8/28 18:37, David Howells wrote:
libaokun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:In netfs_init() or fscache_proc_init(), we create dentry under 'fs/netfs', but in netfs_exit(), we only delete the proc entry of 'fs/netfs' without deleting its subtree. This triggers the following WARNING: ================================================================== remove_proc_entry: removing non-empty directory 'fs/netfs', leaking at least 'requests' WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 566 at fs/proc/generic.c:717 remove_proc_entry+0x160/0x1c0 Modules linked in: netfs(-) CPU: 4 UID: 0 PID: 566 Comm: rmmod Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3 #860 RIP: 0010:remove_proc_entry+0x160/0x1c0 Call Trace: <TASK> netfs_exit+0x12/0x620 [netfs] __do_sys_delete_module.isra.0+0x14c/0x2e0 do_syscall_64+0x4b/0x110 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e ================================================================== Therefore use remove_proc_subtree instead() of remove_proc_entry() to fix the above problem. Fixes: 7eb5b3e3a0a5 ("netfs, fscache: Move /proc/fs/fscache to /proc/fs/netfs and put in a symlink") Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@xxxxxxxxxx>Should remove_proc_entry() just remove the entire subtree anyway?
Yeah, in general, when we remove a proc entry, we don't care if it has subtrees. But I'm not sure if there are certain scenarios where entries must be removed in a certain order .
But you can add: Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> David
Thanks for your ack! -- With Best Regards, Baokun Li
