proc: always do ->release
Current two-stage scheme of removing PDE emphasizes one bug in proc:
open
rmmod
remove_proc_entry
close
->release won't be called because ->proc_fops were cleared. In simple
cases it's small memory leak.
For every ->open, ->release has to be done. List of openers is introduced
which is traversed at remove_proc_entry() if neeeded.
Discussions with Al long ago (sigh).
Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
diff --git a/fs/proc/inode.c b/fs/proc/inode.c
index b08d100..354c084 100644
--- a/fs/proc/inode.c
+++ b/fs/proc/inode.c
@@ -126,12 +126,17 @@
.remount_fs = proc_remount,
};
-static void pde_users_dec(struct proc_dir_entry *pde)
+static void __pde_users_dec(struct proc_dir_entry *pde)
{
- spin_lock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
pde->pde_users--;
if (pde->pde_unload_completion && pde->pde_users == 0)
complete(pde->pde_unload_completion);
+}
+
+static void pde_users_dec(struct proc_dir_entry *pde)
+{
+ spin_lock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
+ __pde_users_dec(pde);
spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
}
@@ -318,36 +323,97 @@
struct proc_dir_entry *pde = PDE(inode);
int rv = 0;
int (*open)(struct inode *, struct file *);
+ int (*release)(struct inode *, struct file *);
+ struct pde_opener *pdeo;
+
+ /*
+ * What for, you ask? Well, we can have open, rmmod, remove_proc_entry
+ * sequence. ->release won't be called because ->proc_fops will be
+ * cleared. Depending on complexity of ->release, consequences vary.
+ *
+ * We can't wait for mercy when close will be done for real, it's
+ * deadlockable: rmmod foo </proc/foo . So, we're going to do ->release
+ * by hand in remove_proc_entry(). For this, save opener's credentials
+ * for later.
+ */
+ pdeo = kmalloc(sizeof(struct pde_opener), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!pdeo)
+ return -ENOMEM;
spin_lock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
if (!pde->proc_fops) {
spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
+ kfree(pdeo);
return rv;
}
pde->pde_users++;
open = pde->proc_fops->open;
+ release = pde->proc_fops->release;
spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
if (open)
rv = open(inode, file);
- pde_users_dec(pde);
+ spin_lock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
+ if (rv == 0 && release) {
+ /* To know what to release. */
+ pdeo->inode = inode;
+ pdeo->file = file;
+ /* Strictly for "too late" ->release in proc_reg_release(). */
+ pdeo->release = release;
+ list_add(&pdeo->lh, &pde->pde_openers);
+ } else
+ kfree(pdeo);
+ __pde_users_dec(pde);
+ spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
return rv;
}
+static struct pde_opener *find_pde_opener(struct proc_dir_entry *pde,
+ struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
+{
+ struct pde_opener *pdeo;
+
+ list_for_each_entry(pdeo, &pde->pde_openers, lh) {
+ if (pdeo->inode == inode && pdeo->file == file)
+ return pdeo;
+ }
+ return NULL;
+}
+
static int proc_reg_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
{
struct proc_dir_entry *pde = PDE(inode);
int rv = 0;
int (*release)(struct inode *, struct file *);
+ struct pde_opener *pdeo;
spin_lock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
+ pdeo = find_pde_opener(pde, inode, file);
if (!pde->proc_fops) {
- spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
+ /*
+ * Can't simply exit, __fput() will think that everything is OK,
+ * and move on to freeing struct file. remove_proc_entry() will
+ * find slacker in opener's list and will try to do non-trivial
+ * things with struct file. Therefore, remove opener from list.
+ *
+ * But if opener is removed from list, who will ->release it?
+ */
+ if (pdeo) {
+ list_del(&pdeo->lh);
+ spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
+ rv = pdeo->release(inode, file);
+ kfree(pdeo);
+ } else
+ spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
return rv;
}
pde->pde_users++;
release = pde->proc_fops->release;
+ if (pdeo) {
+ list_del(&pdeo->lh);
+ kfree(pdeo);
+ }
spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
if (release)