On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 20:35:02 -0400 Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 15:56:15 -0700 > Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:59 PM Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I bisected this down to the addition of the proxy_ops into tracefs for > > > lockdown. It appears that the allocation of the proxy_ops and then freeing > > > it in the destroy_inode callback, is causing havoc with the memory system. > > > Reading the documentation about destroy_inode and talking with Linus about > > > this, this is buggy and wrong. > > > > Can you still add the explanation about the inode memory leak to this > > message? > > > > Right now it just says "it's buggy and wrong". True. But doesn't > > explain _why_ it is buggy and wrong. > > > > Sure. The patches just finished my testing (along with other fixes that > I need to send you). I have to make a few other updates in the change > log though, so I'll be rebasing them (but not touching the code), to > clean up the change logs. > I updated this change log to state: "I bisected this down to the addition of the proxy_ops into tracefs for lockdown. It appears that the allocation of the proxy_ops and then freeing it in the destroy_inode callback, is causing havoc with the memory system. Reading the documentation about destroy_inode and talking with Linus about this, this is buggy and wrong. When defining the destroy_inode() method, it is expected that the destroy_inode() will also free the inode, and not just the extra allocations done in the creation of the inode. The faulty commit causes a memory leak of the inode data structure when they are deleted." -- Steve
