"Catalin Marinas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 14/03/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> How does this look? > > It seems to fix the leak. I looked at the logs and proc_set_tty calls > put_pid twice for pid 245 (the unresolved leak) and get_pid for pid > 296, which is later passed to put_pid via do_tty_hangup.
I can see where this would. Now I do have a concern that proc_set_tty. With my current foggy recollections of the semantics of how SIGHUP is sent I think both callers of proc_set_tty are buggy. We steal away the tty and don't send SIGHUP to the old users of the tty. For flush_unauthorized files making that case looks fairly easy. For tiocsctty this it looks more difficult. I need to carefully read through what the rules are again to be certain. There are legitimate cases for not sending SIGHUP. > I still get the "error attempted to write to tty [0x00000000] = NULL" > when debugging is enabled in tty_io.c but it seems harmless. Yes. I think that is the last vestiges of a recent tty layer debugging session. The code is 8 dec 2006, and came in when we started testing for NULL and making a NULL tty there harmless. I remember walking through disassociate_ctty several months ago and not finding any bugs, but I might look again. So anyway I almost have this. 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/
