From 881adb85358309ea9c6f707394002719982ec607 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alexey Dobriyan Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:48:29 -0700 Subject: proc: always do ->release Current two-stage scheme of removing PDE emphasizes one bug in proc: open rmmod remove_proc_entry close ->release won't be called because ->proc_fops were cleared. In simple cases it's small memory leak. For every ->open, ->release has to be done. List of openers is introduced which is traversed at remove_proc_entry() if neeeded. Discussions with Al long ago (sigh). Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan Cc: Al Viro Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- fs/proc/generic.c | 14 +++++++++++ fs/proc/inode.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- fs/proc/internal.h | 7 ++++++ 3 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'fs/proc') diff --git a/fs/proc/generic.c b/fs/proc/generic.c index 43e54e86cef..bc0a0dd2d84 100644 --- a/fs/proc/generic.c +++ b/fs/proc/generic.c @@ -597,6 +597,7 @@ static struct proc_dir_entry *__proc_create(struct proc_dir_entry **parent, ent->pde_users = 0; spin_lock_init(&ent->pde_unload_lock); ent->pde_unload_completion = NULL; + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ent->pde_openers); out: return ent; } @@ -789,6 +790,19 @@ void remove_proc_entry(const char *name, struct proc_dir_entry *parent) spin_unlock(&de->pde_unload_lock); continue_removing: + spin_lock(&de->pde_unload_lock); + while (!list_empty(&de->pde_openers)) { + struct pde_opener *pdeo; + + pdeo = list_first_entry(&de->pde_openers, struct pde_opener, lh); + list_del(&pdeo->lh); + spin_unlock(&de->pde_unload_lock); + pdeo->release(pdeo->inode, pdeo->file); + kfree(pdeo); + spin_lock(&de->pde_unload_lock); + } + spin_unlock(&de->pde_unload_lock); + if (S_ISDIR(de->mode)) parent->nlink--; de->nlink = 0; diff --git a/fs/proc/inode.c b/fs/proc/inode.c index b08d1001791..354c0848582 100644 --- a/fs/proc/inode.c +++ b/fs/proc/inode.c @@ -126,12 +126,17 @@ static const struct super_operations proc_sops = { .remount_fs = proc_remount, }; -static void pde_users_dec(struct proc_dir_entry *pde) +static void __pde_users_dec(struct proc_dir_entry *pde) { - spin_lock(&pde->pde_unload_lock); pde->pde_users--; if (pde->pde_unload_completion && pde->pde_users == 0) complete(pde->pde_unload_completion); +} + +static void pde_users_dec(struct proc_dir_entry *pde) +{ + spin_lock(&pde->pde_unload_lock); + __pde_users_dec(pde); spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock); } @@ -318,36 +323,97 @@ static int proc_reg_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) struct proc_dir_entry *pde = PDE(inode); int rv = 0; int (*open)(struct inode *, struct file *); + int (*release)(struct inode *, struct file *); + struct pde_opener *pdeo; + + /* + * What for, you ask? Well, we can have open, rmmod, remove_proc_entry + * sequence. ->release won't be called because ->proc_fops will be + * cleared. Depending on complexity of ->release, consequences vary. + * + * We can't wait for mercy when close will be done for real, it's + * deadlockable: rmmod foo release + * by hand in remove_proc_entry(). For this, save opener's credentials + * for later. + */ + pdeo = kmalloc(sizeof(struct pde_opener), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!pdeo) + return -ENOMEM; spin_lock(&pde->pde_unload_lock); if (!pde->proc_fops) { spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock); + kfree(pdeo); return rv; } pde->pde_users++; open = pde->proc_fops->open; + release = pde->proc_fops->release; spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock); if (open) rv = open(inode, file); - pde_users_dec(pde); + spin_lock(&pde->pde_unload_lock); + if (rv == 0 && release) { + /* To know what to release. */ + pdeo->inode = inode; + pdeo->file = file; + /* Strictly for "too late" ->release in proc_reg_release(). */ + pdeo->release = release; + list_add(&pdeo->lh, &pde->pde_openers); + } else + kfree(pdeo); + __pde_users_dec(pde); + spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock); return rv; } +static struct pde_opener *find_pde_opener(struct proc_dir_entry *pde, + struct inode *inode, struct file *file) +{ + struct pde_opener *pdeo; + + list_for_each_entry(pdeo, &pde->pde_openers, lh) { + if (pdeo->inode == inode && pdeo->file == file) + return pdeo; + } + return NULL; +} + static int proc_reg_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) { struct proc_dir_entry *pde = PDE(inode); int rv = 0; int (*release)(struct inode *, struct file *); + struct pde_opener *pdeo; spin_lock(&pde->pde_unload_lock); + pdeo = find_pde_opener(pde, inode, file); if (!pde->proc_fops) { - spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock); + /* + * Can't simply exit, __fput() will think that everything is OK, + * and move on to freeing struct file. remove_proc_entry() will + * find slacker in opener's list and will try to do non-trivial + * things with struct file. Therefore, remove opener from list. + * + * But if opener is removed from list, who will ->release it? + */ + if (pdeo) { + list_del(&pdeo->lh); + spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock); + rv = pdeo->release(inode, file); + kfree(pdeo); + } else + spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock); return rv; } pde->pde_users++; release = pde->proc_fops->release; + if (pdeo) { + list_del(&pdeo->lh); + kfree(pdeo); + } spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock); if (release) diff --git a/fs/proc/internal.h b/fs/proc/internal.h index 8d67616e7bb..442202314d5 100644 --- a/fs/proc/internal.h +++ b/fs/proc/internal.h @@ -89,3 +89,10 @@ struct dentry *proc_lookup_de(struct proc_dir_entry *de, struct inode *ino, struct dentry *dentry); int proc_readdir_de(struct proc_dir_entry *de, struct file *filp, void *dirent, filldir_t filldir); + +struct pde_opener { + struct inode *inode; + struct file *file; + int (*release)(struct inode *, struct file *); + struct list_head lh; +}; -- cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2