"Catalin Marinas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 09/03/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If I can manage to focus on this, it looks like the information I need to >> start fixing this. > > I had a look at the second leak reported it seems to be caused by the > same proc_set_tty() call but, in this case, there is no > disassociate_tty() call for the task (and the patch I posted is not > enough). Maybe something like below (no thourough testing):
Thanks. That doesn't look to bad. I'm just about to look into this. If I'm lucky all I will need to do is a close code review of your patch. Hopefully I can do that this afternoon. > diff --git a/drivers/char/tty_io.c b/drivers/char/tty_io.c > index db91398..ea6ca7d 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/tty_io.c > +++ b/drivers/char/tty_io.c > @@ -3854,7 +3854,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_devnum); > > void proc_clear_tty(struct task_struct *p) > { > + struct tty_struct *tty; > + > spin_lock_irq(&p->sighand->siglock); > + tty = p->signal->tty; > + if (tty) { > + put_pid(tty->session); > + put_pid(tty->pgrp); > + } > p->signal->tty = NULL; > spin_unlock_irq(&p->sighand->siglock); > } Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/