[Devel] Re: [PATCH] Memory shortage can result in inconsistent flocks state
Chuck Ebbert
cebbert at redhat.com
Thu Sep 13 12:45:01 PDT 2007
On 09/13/2007 03:34 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> Doesn't that create a leak in some cases?
>>
>>> for_each_lock(inode, before) {
>>> struct file_lock *fl = *before;
>>> if (IS_POSIX(fl))
>>> break;
>>> if (IS_LEASE(fl))
>>> continue;
>>> if (filp != fl->fl_file)
>>> continue;
>>> if (request->fl_type == fl->fl_type)
>>> goto out; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< LEAK?
>
> You mean, a leak of the memory allocated for new_fl? That's freed at
> the exit labeled with "out". It's the only exit:
>
> out:
> unlock_kernel();
> if (new_fl)
> locks_free_lock(new_fl);
> return error;
>
> And new_fl is initially NULL, assigned only once by the allocation, then
> assigned to NULL only at the very end when we know we've succeeded.
>
> Am I missing something else?
>
Never mind, I didn't look closely enough. Looks good to me.
More information about the Devel
mailing list