Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?
- From: "Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:03:16 +0200
Any chance the patches below that fix two mem leaks in XFS will make
it in in time for 2.6.22? I believe they should...
On 18/05/07, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday 17 May 2007 04:40:24 David Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 11:31:16PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The Coverity checker found a memory leak in xfs_inactive().
> ....
> > So, the code allocates a transaction, but in the case where 'truncate' is
> > !=0 and xfs_itruncate_start(ip, XFS_ITRUNC_DEFINITE, 0); happens to return
> > an error, we'll just return from the function without dealing with the
> > memory allocated byxfs_trans_alloc() and assigned to 'tp', thus it'll be
> > orphaned/leaked - not good.
>
> Yeah, introduced by:
>
> http://git2.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=d3cf209476b72c83907a412b6708c5e498410aa7
>
> Thanks for reporting the problem, Jesper.
>
You are welcome.
That commit introduces the same problem in xfs_inactive_free_eofblocks().
Patch to fix it below.
> > What I'm wondering is this; is it enough, at this point, to call
> > xfs_trans_free(tp); (it would seem to me that would be OK, but I'm not
> > intimite with this code) or do we need a full xfs_trans_cancel(tp, 0); ???
>
> xfs_trans_free() is not supposed to be called by anything but the transaction
> code (it's static). So a xfs_trans_cancel() would need to be issued.
>
Makes sense. Thanks. I completely missed the static nature :-/
Fix XFS memory leak; allocated transaction not freed in xfs_inactive_free_eofblocks() in failure case.
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
index de17aed..32519cf 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
@@ -1260,6 +1260,7 @@ xfs_inactive_free_eofblocks(
error = xfs_itruncate_start(ip, XFS_ITRUNC_DEFINITE,
ip->i_size);
if (error) {
+ xfs_trans_cancel(tp, 0);
xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL);
return error;
}
--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?
- From: Jesper Juhl
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?
- From: David Chinner
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?
- From: Jesper Juhl
- [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH - 1/1] Documentation/HOWTO
- Next by Date: [BUG] long freezes on thinkpad t60
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?
- Next by thread: [PATCH 10/10] [HEADS UP] fbdev: Move arch-specific bits to their respective subdirectories
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
