Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 5 Nov 1998 05:43:24 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | [FIX] Re: nasty inode leak in 2.1.125? details |
| |
On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi, > > On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:26:00 -0500 (EST), Alexander Viro > <viro@math.psu.edu> said: > > > Stephen, I also did hit it. In 2.1.126. Couldn't reproduce it yet. I've > > poked in /dev/kmem and it turned out that ->s_root->d_count was 2 without > > any obvious holders. So it sounds like dentry leak. And no, I don't know > > how I got there. _Not_ the way that Chris described, that's for sure. > > OK, I'll file this for now and keep my eyes open for other reports: > can _anybody_ reliably reproduce this?
Me. Recipe: rename(foo,bar) for non-existant foo. You'll get ENOENT, sure, but in addition you'll have a lost reference to dentry of foo. Looks like the bug happened in 2.1.123.
Linus, could you apply the following fix?
--- linux/fs/namei.c.orig Sat Oct 24 22:36:27 1998 +++ linux/fs/namei.c Thu Nov 5 02:41:01 1998 @@ -1195,7 +1195,7 @@ error = -ENOENT; if (!old_dentry->d_inode) - goto exit; + goto exit_old; { unsigned int flags = 0; HTH. HAND. Al -- There are no "civil aviation for dummies" books out there and most of you would probably be scared and spend a lot of your time looking up if there was one. :-) Jordan Hubbard in c.u.b.f.m
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |