proc: always do ->release

Current two-stage scheme of removing PDE emphasizes one bug in proc:

		open
				rmmod
				remove_proc_entry
		close

->release won't be called because ->proc_fops were cleared.  In simple
cases it's small memory leak.

For every ->open, ->release has to be done.  List of openers is introduced
which is traversed at remove_proc_entry() if neeeded.

Discussions with Al long ago (sigh).

Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
Alexey Dobriyan
2008-07-25 01:48:29 -07:00
committed by Linus Torvalds
parent 6e644c3126
commit 881adb8535
4 changed files with 92 additions and 4 deletions

View File

@@ -597,6 +597,7 @@ static struct proc_dir_entry *__proc_create(struct proc_dir_entry **parent,
ent->pde_users = 0;
spin_lock_init(&ent->pde_unload_lock);
ent->pde_unload_completion = NULL;
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ent->pde_openers);
out:
return ent;
}
@@ -789,6 +790,19 @@ void remove_proc_entry(const char *name, struct proc_dir_entry *parent)
spin_unlock(&de->pde_unload_lock);
continue_removing:
spin_lock(&de->pde_unload_lock);
while (!list_empty(&de->pde_openers)) {
struct pde_opener *pdeo;
pdeo = list_first_entry(&de->pde_openers, struct pde_opener, lh);
list_del(&pdeo->lh);
spin_unlock(&de->pde_unload_lock);
pdeo->release(pdeo->inode, pdeo->file);
kfree(pdeo);
spin_lock(&de->pde_unload_lock);
}
spin_unlock(&de->pde_unload_lock);
if (S_ISDIR(de->mode))
parent->nlink--;
de->nlink = 0;