[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46E9933D.5070802@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:45:01 -0400
From: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
CC: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Memory shortage can result in inconsistent flocks state
On 09/13/2007 03:34 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> Doesn't that create a leak in some cases?
>>
>>> for_each_lock(inode, before) {
>>> struct file_lock *fl = *before;
>>> if (IS_POSIX(fl))
>>> break;
>>> if (IS_LEASE(fl))
>>> continue;
>>> if (filp != fl->fl_file)
>>> continue;
>>> if (request->fl_type == fl->fl_type)
>>> goto out; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< LEAK?
>
> You mean, a leak of the memory allocated for new_fl? That's freed at
> the exit labeled with "out". It's the only exit:
>
> out:
> unlock_kernel();
> if (new_fl)
> locks_free_lock(new_fl);
> return error;
>
> And new_fl is initially NULL, assigned only once by the allocation, then
> assigned to NULL only at the very end when we know we've succeeded.
>
> Am I missing something else?
>
Never mind, I didn't look closely enough. Looks good to me.
-
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