Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-16 Thread Catalin Marinas
On 16/03/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Catalin Marinas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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_

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-16 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"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 pas

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-15 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"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 pas

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-14 Thread Catalin Marinas
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 still get the "erro

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-14 Thread Eric W. Biederman
How does this look? I don't have the setup to test this easily, but this bit makes seems to make sense. I will keep code reviewing and see if I can convince myself that this is correct or incorrect in the mean time... diff --git a/drivers/char/tty_io.c b/drivers/char/tty_io.c index e453268..fc1

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-14 Thread Catalin Marinas
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) { > +

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-13 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"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

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-12 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"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

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-12 Thread Catalin Marinas
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()

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-09 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"Catalin Marinas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Eric, > > For a longer explanation, see the second part of this e-mail. In > short, the patch below seems to fix this particular leak. I'm not sure > that's the correct/complete fix as I seem to still get a 2nd report. > Any info is welcomed. Sure.

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-09 Thread Catalin Marinas
On 09/03/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Catalin Marinas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 08/03/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Catalin Marinas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think it's only the pid_chain and rcu member that could be placed in > a list

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-09 Thread Catalin Marinas
Eric, For a longer explanation, see the second part of this e-mail. In short, the patch below seems to fix this particular leak. I'm not sure that's the correct/complete fix as I seem to still get a 2nd report. Any info is welcomed. diff --git a/drivers/char/tty_io.c b/drivers/char/tty_io.c inde

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-09 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"Catalin Marinas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 08/03/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Catalin Marinas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think it's only the pid_chain and rcu member that could be placed in > a list and kmemleak scans the memory for these two offsets as well

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-09 Thread Catalin Marinas
On 08/03/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Catalin Marinas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm trying to track down a kmemleak report (on an ARM platform) which > seems to have appeared with commit > ab521dc0f8e117fd808d3e425216864d60390500. As I'm not familiar with the > TTY layer

Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

2007-03-08 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"Catalin Marinas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Eric, > > I'm trying to track down a kmemleak report (on an ARM platform) which > seems to have appeared with commit > ab521dc0f8e117fd808d3e425216864d60390500. As I'm not familiar with the > TTY layer at all, is it possible that the above commit