linux-kernel - Re: inotify_add_watch() returning ENOSPC in 2.6.24 [watch descriptor leak?]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ecb4efd10802061140g929e699y8d79f1317c30478d@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:40:58 -0500
From:	"Clem Taylor" <clem.taylor@...il.com>
To:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Amy Griffis" <amy.griffis@...com>
Subject: Re: inotify_add_watch() returning ENOSPC in 2.6.24 [watch descriptor leak?]

On Feb 6, 2008 4:51 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:49:42 -0500 "Clem Taylor" <clem.taylor@...il.com> wrote:
> > I'm trying to move a MIPS based embedded system from 2.6.16.16 to
> > 2.6.24. Most things seem to be working, but I'm having troubles with
> > inotify. The code is using inotify to detect a file written to /tmp
> > (tmpfs). The writer creates a file with a temporary name and then
> > rename()s the tmp file over the file I'm monitoring.
> >
> > With 2.6.16.16, everything works fine, but with 2.6.24, the inotify
> > process runs for a while (~100 events) and then inotify_add_watch()
> > returns ENOSPC. Once this happens, I can't add new watches, even if I
> > kill the process and restart it. fs.inotify.max_user_instances and
> > fs.inotify.max_user_watches are both 128, so I'd imagine I'm hitting
> > this limit. For some reason the watches aren't getting cleaned up
> > (even after the process is killed).

> Good bug report, thanks.  That code was significantly altered in June 2006
> and perhaps something broke.

I also tested on a 2.6.20 x86 desktop machine. It took ~8k iterations
to fail, which matched max_user_watches. Once the program fails, it
will fail right away if it is re-run.

> It's a bit hard to find people who work on inotify, I'm afraid.  If you had
> the time to come up with a script or program which demonstrates the bug,
> that would be super-helpful?

Attached is a simple example that shows off the problem. On a system
with a problem, it will only run for about
fs.inotify.max_user_watches iterations. If everything is working, it
should run forever.

                                 Thanks,
                                 Clem

View attachment "inotifyLeak.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (3218 bytes)