mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@ispras.ru>
To: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>, Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>,
	Takeshi Misawa <jeliantsurux@gmail.com>,
	autofs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@ispras.ru>,
	lvc-project@linuxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] autofs: fix memory leak of waitqueues in autofs_catatonic_mode
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 20:56:27 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230310175627.dvmkyvgb7b3qehbx@fpc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2f87a31c-7879-dce8-9c4b-01d2e781e22c@themaw.net>

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 12:37:16PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> 
> I was going to Ack the patch but I wondering if we should wait a little
> 
> while and perhaps (probably) include the wake up call change as well.
>

Hmm, those would be separate patches?

An interesting thing is that the code itself supposes the wake up calls
from autofs_wait_release() and autofs_catatonic_mode() to be related in
some way (see autofs_wait fragment):

	/*
	 * wq->name.name is NULL iff the lock is already released
	 * or the mount has been made catatonic.
	 */
	wait_event_killable(wq->queue, wq->name.name == NULL);
	status = wq->status;

It seems 'the lock is already released' refers to autofs_wait_release()
as there is no alternative except the call to catatonic function where
wq->name.name is NULL. So apparently the wake up calls should be the same
(although I don't know if autofs_catatonic_mode has some different
behaviour in such case, but probably it doesn't differ here).

It's also strange that autofs_kill_sb() calls autofs_catatonic_mode() and
currently it just decrements the wait_ctr's and it is not clear to me
where the waitqueues are eventually freed in such case. Only if
autofs_wait_release() or autofs_wait() are called? I'm not sure whether
they are definitely called after that or not.

[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/autofs/msg01878.html
> 
> In any case we need Al to accept it (cc'd).
> 
> Hopefully Al will offer his opinion on the changes too.
> 

It would be very nice if probably Al would make it more clear.

At the moment I think that the leak issue should be fixed with the
currenly discussed patch and the wake up call issue should be fixed like
in [1], but perhaps I'm missing something.

  reply	other threads:[~2023-03-10 17:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-02-11 19:59 Fedor Pchelkin
2023-02-11 19:59 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Fedor Pchelkin
2023-02-13  1:25 ` [PATCH 0/1] " Ian Kent
2023-02-13  4:27 ` Ian Kent
2023-02-13  4:37   ` Ian Kent
2023-03-10 17:56     ` Fedor Pchelkin [this message]
2023-03-11  7:01       ` Ian Kent

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20230310175627.dvmkyvgb7b3qehbx@fpc \
    --to=pchelkin@ispras.ru \
    --cc=autofs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=avagin@gmail.com \
    --cc=jeliantsurux@gmail.com \
    --cc=khoroshilov@ispras.ru \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lvc-project@linuxtesting.org \
    --cc=raven@themaw.net \
    --cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®