Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] struct file leakage | From | Trond Myklebust <> | Date | Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:26:02 -0400 |
| |
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 16:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote: > > > > > > - if (error) > > > > + if (error) { > > > > + /* Does someone understand code flow here? Or it is only > > > > + * me so stupid? Anathema to whoever designed this non-sense > > > > + * with "intent.open". > > > > + */ > > > > + if (!IS_ERR(nd->intent.open.file)) > > > > + release_open_intent(nd); > > > > return error; > > > > + } > > > > nd->flags &= ~LOOKUP_PARENT; > > > > if (nd->last_type == LAST_BIND) > > > > goto ok; > > > > > > > > > > It's good to have some more Alexeycomments in the tree. > > > > > > I wonder if we're also needing a path_release() here. And if not, whether > > > it is still safe to run release_open_intent() against this nameidata? > > > > > > Hopefully Trond can recall what's going on in there... > > > > The patch looks correct, except that I believe we can skip the IS_ERR() > > test there: if we're following links then we presumably have not tried > > to open any files yet, so the call to release_open_intent(nd) can be > > made unconditional. > > Sorry, but phrases like "looks correct" and "I believe" don't inspire > confidence. (Although what you say looks correct ;)) Are you sure?
We do need the call to release_open_intent(), since otherwise we will leak a struct file. The question is whether we can optimise away the IS_ERR() test. In my opinion, we can.
> And do we also need a path_release(nd) in there?
No. do_follow_link() should release the path for us on error. Replacing with a 'goto exit' would therefore be a mistake.
Cheers, Trond
- 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/
| |