lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c
Date
"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@gmail.com> writes:

> On 14/03/07, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> 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 can see where this would. Now I do have a concern that proc_set_tty.
With my current foggy recollections of the semantics of how SIGHUP is
sent I think both callers of proc_set_tty are buggy. We steal away
the tty and don't send SIGHUP to the old users of the tty.

For flush_unauthorized files making that case looks fairly easy.
For tiocsctty this it looks more difficult.

I need to carefully read through what the rules are again to be certain.
There are legitimate cases for not sending SIGHUP.

> I still get the "error attempted to write to tty [0x00000000] = NULL"
> when debugging is enabled in tty_io.c but it seems harmless.

Yes. I think that is the last vestiges of a recent tty layer debugging
session. The code is 8 dec 2006, and came in when we started testing
for NULL and making a NULL tty there harmless.

I remember walking through disassociate_ctty several months ago and
not finding any bugs, but I might look again.

So anyway I almost have this.

Eric
-
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: 2007-03-15 20:19    [W:0.155 / U:0.676 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site