On 13/03/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Catalin Marinas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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); > }This patch can't be right. Not the way proc_clear_tty is called once for each process in the session, plus we aren't clearing tty->session and tty->pgrp here. If the above patch works it's a fluke.
I looked at the logs and the pointer isn't freed indeed. It is just a false negative in kmemleak and it would appear as a leak at some point. But the previous patch (do_tty_hangup) seems to fix one of the leaks. For the 2nd leak, proc_set_tty is called and, for symmetry, I added put_pid in proc_clear_tty (but without any deep thought). I also haven't checked any lockdep issues with adding put_pid when p->sighand->siglock is held. -- Catalin - 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/
