Re: Possible "struct pid" leak from tty_io.c

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@gmail.com> writes:

> On 14/03/07, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>> How does this look?
>
> It seems to fix the leak. I looked at the logs and proc_set_tty calls
> put_pid twice for pid 245 (the unresolved leak) and get_pid for pid
> 296, which is later passed to put_pid via do_tty_hangup.

I can see where this would.  Now I do have a concern that proc_set_tty.
With my current foggy recollections of the semantics of how SIGHUP is
sent I think both callers of proc_set_tty are buggy.  We steal away
the tty and don't send SIGHUP to the old users of the tty.

For flush_unauthorized files making that case looks fairly easy.
For tiocsctty this it looks more difficult.

I need to carefully read through what the rules are again to be certain.
There are legitimate cases for not sending SIGHUP.

> I still get the "error attempted to write to tty [0x00000000] = NULL"
> when debugging is enabled in tty_io.c but it seems harmless.

Yes.  I think that is the last vestiges of a recent tty layer debugging
session.  The code is 8 dec 2006, and came in when we started testing
for NULL and making a NULL tty there harmless.

I remember walking through disassociate_ctty several months ago and
not finding any bugs, but I might look again.

So anyway I almost have this.

Eric