[lvc-project] [PATCH 0/1] autofs: fix memory leak of waitqueues in autofs_catatonic_mode
Fedor Pchelkin
pchelkin at ispras.ru
Fri Mar 10 20:56:27 MSK 2023
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.
More information about the lvc-project
mailing list