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
