| To: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [xfs-masters] Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ? |
| From: | Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 18 May 2007 00:53:55 +0200 |
| Cc: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Dkim-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=Y74CrE5kKcab9OvEfW8WvalROq7HckxOxCQ7BiZnxc2qXzlRJH2Hm3V696OWRBak2TfHDWD8xzpOtFDP9PZxFMFL1ntRor9jmywhUNYoWRVbQLTO0M6Ec3wM3LK0//jSk+dthlzgW8w1pIso58OhHZFYjLbF8vUds+RYd+kTDQc= |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=q+Ee5akpQ8pJsXKIoUmkzn5UI59+O8YmVEjZEg9vitrI52rQraEKdniq7J54xT3NOc8O22I8I1RFxp/8OWZiLYwhUp7F7SXqkDq01KBz0MRLbJ2zUb1wEu3Gm3D5uCNxwg7IMoLwO38Dky4DcotAeqeFKan7UyIhzrqPTBsRtp4= |
| In-reply-to: | <20070517024024.GT85884050@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <200705162331.16429.jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx> <20070517024024.GT85884050@xxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.9.6 |
On Thursday 17 May 2007 04:40:24 David Chinner wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 11:31:16PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The Coverity checker found a memory leak in xfs_inactive(). > .... > > So, the code allocates a transaction, but in the case where 'truncate' is > > !=0 and xfs_itruncate_start(ip, XFS_ITRUNC_DEFINITE, 0); happens to return > > an error, we'll just return from the function without dealing with the > > memory allocated byxfs_trans_alloc() and assigned to 'tp', thus it'll be > > orphaned/leaked - not good. > > Yeah, introduced by: > > http://git2.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=d3cf209476b72c83907a412b6708c5e498410aa7 > > Thanks for reporting the problem, Jesper. > You are welcome. That commit introduces the same problem in xfs_inactive_free_eofblocks(). Patch to fix it below. > > What I'm wondering is this; is it enough, at this point, to call > > xfs_trans_free(tp); (it would seem to me that would be OK, but I'm not > > intimite with this code) or do we need a full xfs_trans_cancel(tp, 0); ??? > > xfs_trans_free() is not supposed to be called by anything but the transaction > code (it's static). So a xfs_trans_cancel() would need to be issued. > Makes sense. Thanks. I completely missed the static nature :-/ Fix XFS memory leak; allocated transaction not freed in xfs_inactive_free_eofblocks() in failure case. Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx> --- fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c index de17aed..32519cf 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c @@ -1260,6 +1260,7 @@ xfs_inactive_free_eofblocks( error = xfs_itruncate_start(ip, XFS_ITRUNC_DEFINITE, ip->i_size); if (error) { + xfs_trans_cancel(tp, 0); xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL); return error; } |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?, David Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: [RFC][PATCH] XFS: memory leak in xfs_inactive() - is xfs_trans_free() enough or do we need xfs_trans_cancel() ?, Jesper Juhl |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |