lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    DateTue, 9 Apr 2002 16:25:10 -0400
    FromPete Zaitcev <>
    SubjectPatch for a leak of anonymous devices
    Hi, Al:
    
    Arjan used your fix from 2.5 which simply moves the allocation
    of the device. Are you going to change in in 2.4 too?
    Here's what I did for 2.4.18-pre6 temporarily:
    
    --- linux-2.4.18-pre6/fs/super.c	Tue Apr  9 11:58:25 2002
    +++ linux-2.4.18-pre6-p3/fs/super.c	Tue Apr  9 11:53:43 2002
    @@ -632,6 +632,9 @@
     			continue;
     		if (!grab_super(old))
     			goto retry;
    +		spin_lock(&unnamed_dev_lock);
    +		clear_bit(dev, unnamed_dev_in_use);
    +		spin_unlock(&unnamed_dev_lock);
     		destroy_super(s);
     		return old;
     	}
    Another question: your code allows to allocate device (0,0).
    I assume you found it safe; everything works. However, why
    is it safe? Do we have no functions that return zero as a
    device number to indicate a failure?
    
    My moremounts patch simple pre-sets the first bit of the
    unnamed_dev_in_use bitmap to avoid this. But perhaps I am
    paranoid here.
    
    -- Pete
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
    
    
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:22    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2008