From 881adb85358309ea9c6f707394002719982ec607 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alexey Dobriyan Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:48:29 -0700 Subject: 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 Cc: Al Viro Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- fs/proc/generic.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) (limited to 'fs/proc/generic.c') diff --git a/fs/proc/generic.c b/fs/proc/generic.c index 43e54e86cef..bc0a0dd2d84 100644 --- a/fs/proc/generic.c +++ b/fs/proc/generic.c @@ -597,6 +597,7 @@ static struct proc_dir_entry *__proc_create(struct proc_dir_entry **parent, ent->pde_users = 0; spin_lock_init(&ent->pde_unload_lock); ent->pde_unload_completion = NULL; + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ent->pde_openers); out: return ent; } @@ -789,6 +790,19 @@ void remove_proc_entry(const char *name, struct proc_dir_entry *parent) spin_unlock(&de->pde_unload_lock); continue_removing: + spin_lock(&de->pde_unload_lock); + while (!list_empty(&de->pde_openers)) { + struct pde_opener *pdeo; + + pdeo = list_first_entry(&de->pde_openers, struct pde_opener, lh); + list_del(&pdeo->lh); + spin_unlock(&de->pde_unload_lock); + pdeo->release(pdeo->inode, pdeo->file); + kfree(pdeo); + spin_lock(&de->pde_unload_lock); + } + spin_unlock(&de->pde_unload_lock); + if (S_ISDIR(de->mode)) parent->nlink--; de->nlink = 0; -- cgit v1.2.3