Le 23/10/2014 00:40, Andrew Morton a écrit :
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:46:02 -0400 Debabrata Banerjee <dbanerje@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't see why this should print warnings at all instead of properly
unrolling allocations and returning an appropriate error. It's actually
leaking resources currently.
I think the warnings are useful - a duplicate name in /proc is a
significant kernel bug and we'll want to know precisely what caused it
and get it fixed up quickly. So let's keep that bit.
--- a/fs/proc/generic.c
+++ b/fs/proc/generic.c
@@ -304,6 +304,7 @@ static int proc_register(struct proc_dir_entry * dir, struct proc_dir_entry * dp
dp->proc_iops = &proc_file_inode_operations;
} else {
WARN_ON(1);
+ proc_free_inum(dp->low_ino);
return -EINVAL;
}
@@ -311,9 +312,13 @@ static int proc_register(struct proc_dir_entry * dir, struct proc_dir_entry * dp
for (tmp = dir->subdir; tmp; tmp = tmp->next)
if (strcmp(tmp->name, dp->name) == 0) {
- WARN(1, "proc_dir_entry '%s/%s' already registered\n",
- dir->name, dp->name);
- break;
+ spin_unlock(&proc_subdir_lock);
+
+ if (S_ISDIR(dp->mode))
+ dir->nlink--;
+
+ proc_free_inum(dp->low_ino);
+ return -EEXIST;
}
Your patch conflicts somewhat with Nicolas's "fs/proc: use a rb tree for
the directory entries". Here's what I ended up with:
From: Debabrata Banerjee <dbanerje@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: procfs: fix error handling of proc_register()
proc_register() error paths are leaking inodes and directory refcounts.
Signed-off-by: Debabrata Banerjee <dbanerje@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@xxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
