On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 00:45 -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Avi Kivity ([email protected]) wrote:
> > the following program will oom a the 2.6.14.1 kernel, running as an
> > ordinary user:
>
> I don't have a good mechanism for testing leases, but this should fix
> the leak. Mind testing?
>
Bruce has a simpler patch (see attachment). The call to fasync_helper()
in order to free active structures will have already been done in
locks_delete_lock(), so in principle, all we want to do is to skip the
fasync_helper() call in fcntl_setlease().
Cheers,
Trond
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:54:28PM -0500, bfields wrote:
> Sorry, that should ahve been an obvious thing to try after that last
> complaint. OK, looking....
Yup:
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/diffs/fs/[email protected]?nav=index.html|src/|src/fs|hist/fs/locks.c
(Isn't there someone with a complete kernel history in git and a gitweb
interface? Sure would be convenient.)
This seems to fix it, but I want to investigate a little more tommorow.
--b.
---
linux-2.6.14-bfields/fs/locks.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN fs/locks.c~locks-fix-fasync-leak fs/locks.c
--- linux-2.6.14/fs/locks.c~locks-fix-fasync-leak 2005-11-10 18:49:15.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.14-bfields/fs/locks.c 2005-11-10 18:50:12.000000000 -0500
@@ -1446,7 +1446,7 @@ int fcntl_setlease(unsigned int fd, stru
lock_kernel();
error = __setlease(filp, arg, &flp);
- if (error)
+ if (error || arg == F_UNLCK)
goto out_unlock;
error = fasync_helper(fd, filp, 1, &flp->fl_fasync);
_
--- End Message ---
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
