[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120501140314.1d7312fb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 14:03:14 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@...bao.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] memcg: Free spare array to avoid memory leak
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:54:50 +0800
Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@...il.com> wrote:
> From: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@...bao.com>
>
> When the last event is unregistered, there is no need to keep the spare
> array anymore. So free it to avoid memory leak.
How serious is this leak? Is there any way in which it can be used to
consume unbounded amounts of memory?
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -4412,6 +4412,12 @@ static void mem_cgroup_usage_unregister_event(struct cgroup *cgrp,
> swap_buffers:
> /* Swap primary and spare array */
> thresholds->spare = thresholds->primary;
> + /* If all events are unregistered, free the spare array */
> + if (!new) {
> + kfree(thresholds->spare);
> + thresholds->spare = NULL;
> + }
> +
> rcu_assign_pointer(thresholds->primary, new);
>
The resulting code is really quite convoluted. Try to read through it
and follow the handling of ->primary and ->spare. Head spins.
What is the protocol here? If ->primary is NULL then ->spare must also
be NULL?
I'll apply the patch, although I don't (yet) have sufficient info to
know which kernels it should be applied to. Perhaps someone could
revisit this code and see if it can be made more straightforward.
--
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