The patch titled Subject: procfs: missing rcu unlock in proc_reg_release has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is procfs-improve-scaling-in-proc-fix.patch Before you just go and hit "reply", please: a) Consider who else should be cc'ed b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated there every 3-4 working days ------------------------------------------------------ From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx> Subject: procfs: missing rcu unlock in proc_reg_release Commit "procfs: improve scaling in proc" forgot to unlock rcu read lock if the proc file didn't have ops struct. Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@xxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/proc/inode.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff -puN fs/proc/inode.c~procfs-improve-scaling-in-proc-fix fs/proc/inode.c --- a/fs/proc/inode.c~procfs-improve-scaling-in-proc-fix +++ a/fs/proc/inode.c @@ -400,6 +400,7 @@ static int proc_reg_release(struct inode rcu_read_lock(); fops = rcu_dereference(pde->proc_fops); if (!fops) { + rcu_read_unlock(); /* * Can't simply exit, __fput() will think that everything is OK, * and move on to freeing struct file. remove_proc_entry() will _ Patches currently in -mm which might be from sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx are linux-next.patch mm-mempolicyc-fix-wrong-sp_node-insertion.patch mm-mempolicyc-fix-sp_node_init-argument-ordering.patch watchdog-trigger-all-cpu-backtrace-when-locked-up-and-going-to-panic.patch epoll-support-for-disabling-items-and-a-self-test-app-fix.patch procfs-improve-scaling-in-proc-fix.patch -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html