On 01/02, Al Viro wrote:
>
> FWIW, it's still bloody tempting to try. How about hlist from struct file
> through fasync_struct? Possibly with reference from fasync_struct back
> to the queue it's on, while we are at it - would make fasync_helper simpler...
Well, don't ask me ;) I don't know whether this change is good or bad...
Let's forget about files with several fasync_struct's, suppose we have a
pointer ->f_xxx to fasync_struct in struct file. Now __fput() can check
f_xxx != NULL and call ->fasync() if true. But how can we ensure that
(->f_flags & FASYNC) matches (->f_xxx != NULL) ? Looks like we should
kill FASYNC and uglify the code which sets/gets ->f_flags, for example
do_fcntl(F_GETFL) should do
case F_GETFL:
err = filp->f_flags | (filp->f_xxx ? FASYNC : 0)
And what if some strange driver doesn't use the "standard" fasync_helper/
kill_fasync helpers?
Offtopic, but while we are here...
pipe_rdwr_fasync:
retval = fasync_helper(fd, filp, on, &pipe->fasync_readers);
if (retval >= 0)
retval = fasync_helper(fd, filp, on,
&pipe->fasync_writers);
Suppose that on == 1 and the first fasync_helper(fasync_readers) succeeds,
but the second fasync_helper(fasync_writers) fails. We return the error and
this file doesn't get FASYNC, but still it is placed on ->fasync_readers.
This looks just wrong, we return the error to the user-space, but the file
owner can receive the notifications from ->fasync_readers.
And. Don't we leak fasync_struct in this case? With the recent changes,
pipe_rdwr_release() does not call pipe_rdwr_fasync(on => 0) unconditionally.
Instead, __fput() does this, but depending on ->f_flags & FASYNC.
IOW, perhaps we need something like the patch below?
--- a/fs/pipe.c
+++ b/fs/pipe.c
@@ -702,9 +702,11 @@ pipe_rdwr_fasync(int fd, struct file *fi
retval = fasync_helper(fd, filp, on, &pipe->fasync_readers);
- if (retval >= 0)
+ if (retval >= 0) {
retval = fasync_helper(fd, filp, on, &pipe->fasync_writers);
-
+ if (retval < 0) /* can only happen if on == true */
+ fasync_helper(-1, filp, 0, &pipe->fasync_readers);
+ }
mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
if (retval < 0)
And why pipe_xxx_fasync() take ->i_mutex around fasync_helper() ?
Afaics, nothing bad can happen if pipe_xxx_fasync() races with, say,
pipe_read().
Oleg.
|