Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 May 2007 14:03:16 +0200 | From | "Jesper Juhl" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ? |
| |
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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> > --- > 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@gmail.com> 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |