[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1veh5q6s7.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:31:52 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@...il.com>
Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c
"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@...il.com> writes:
> On 09/03/07, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>> If I can manage to focus on this, it looks like the information I need to
>> start fixing this.
>
> I had a look at the second leak reported it seems to be caused by the
> same proc_set_tty() call but, in this case, there is no
> disassociate_tty() call for the task (and the patch I posted is not
> enough). Maybe something like below (no thourough testing):
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tty_io.c b/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> index db91398..ea6ca7d 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> @@ -3854,7 +3854,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_devnum);
>
> void proc_clear_tty(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> + struct tty_struct *tty;
> +
> spin_lock_irq(&p->sighand->siglock);
> + tty = p->signal->tty;
> + if (tty) {
> + put_pid(tty->session);
> + put_pid(tty->pgrp);
> + }
> p->signal->tty = NULL;
> spin_unlock_irq(&p->sighand->siglock);
> }
This patch can't be right. Not the way proc_clear_tty is called
once for each process in the session, plus we aren't clearing
tty->session and tty->pgrp here.
If the above patch works it's a fluke.
Still it is the right general area of the code. I've just started
looking at this it is going to take me a bit to come up to speed on
this code again and see what silly thing is missing.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists