lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] early init: open /dev/console with O_LARGEFILE
2020-01-02 5:39 GMT+08:00, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>:
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 10:32 AM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>>
>> Also, this shouldn't impact the current issue I think, but won't doing
>> filp_open followed by 3 f_dupfd's cause the file->f_count to become 4
>> but with only 3 open fd's? Don't we have to do an fd_install for the
>> first one and only 2 f_dupfd's?
>
> I think *this* is the real reason for the odd regression.
>
> Because we're leaking a file count, the original /dev/console stays
> open, and we end up never calling file->f_op->release().
>
> So we don't call tty_release() on that original /dev/console open, and
> one effect of that is that we never then call session_clear_tty(),
> which should make sure that all the processes in that session ID have
> their controlling tty (signal->tty pointer) cleared.
>
> And if that original controlling tty wasn't cleared, then subsequent
> calls to set the controlling tty won't do anything, and who knows what
> odd session leader confusion we might have.
>
> youling, can you check if - instead of the revert - this simple 'add
> an fput' fixes your warning.
>
> I'm not saying that the revert is wrong at this point, but honestly,
> I'd like to avoid the "we revert because we didn't understand what
> went wrong". It would be good to go "Aaaahhhh, _that_ was the
> problem".
>
> Linus
>

test this patch.diff, no the system/bin/sh warning, fixed.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-02 04:11    [W:0.049 / U:3.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site