From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pboldin@mirantis.com> Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C254683D for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:10:47 +0100 (CET) Received: by wibgn9 with SMTP id gn9so92184482wib.1 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 04:10:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mirantis.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mMhu5yvCPSi7aESORvgXTgRDujmaJZnPLfSMSeJxNMU=; b=jkTyT4oZ5I9Od6AXF8Sk/uA6zzgKZ8HPHP7rYTKse9GZn95T0yKw6TLFJZmH5M2stb fdOD5brW5i6X9/TKfIE3LGiZs/JxMvi6FCUHWaxoINh7rsJpxj0sDX0If/gELKXTSwLG 00OeKUqHkC5l07J3/BciqRsbuzR+s8jMARXr8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mMhu5yvCPSi7aESORvgXTgRDujmaJZnPLfSMSeJxNMU=; b=fj0hlNERtaXIzZdWN3xcDlYNNAVxzmrCLzK6TSg1KVglJIn2coa/rEkyety/v29Yub 8ERzVescqM84EJdD9/BWZMWdDq/kT0vU72O/r4EWl1BKAs3lNTtcSE+z7xXUg4MiDxf9 VSk6pEPk51ujKqJT4Wiytr+3DG1f4LKoKx5+Xuw7KWWIKMeJKceeKLUBMHEC4wuzcI/9 7TwTTxKbGy+PCoJOq6rU3ORz1j2Wx8y+G6Soi0+FnEQOsB/GeyaDt6NBifhGRc5+r0oX 4acwjpEwagT9B3wPfAXLUBx96H/D3YZX757cs8dLjNz5p8kX9yhKoQ42yQQfpkoi3C90 /jMA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmKBsyJTRvl2lk5XoxRT0Nw1bvYspdpKfdiNAnjlU8PJ+Dgv4sVxpGF8iqeGwhCXx+ypTw1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.80.7 with SMTP id n7mr27387135wix.60.1427195447104; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 04:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.76.7 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 04:10:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B0F3F46FB@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1427115225-14489-1-git-send-email-pboldin@mirantis.com> <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B0F3F46FB@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:10:47 +0200 Message-ID: <CACf4_B-x4yOwoksvOoDxipgahayNWdtQi-caNGtCL7ZxAMh-qg@mail.gmail.com> From: Pavel Boldin <pboldin@mirantis.com> To: "Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vhost: Fix `struct file' leakage in `eventfd_link' X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:10:47 -0000 On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie@intel.com> wrote: > On 3/23/2015 8:54 PM, Pavel Boldin wrote: > > Due to increased `struct file's reference counter subsequent call > > to `filp_close' does not free the `struct file'. Prepend `fput' call > > to decrease the reference counter. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Boldin <pboldin@mirantis.com> > > --- > > lib/librte_vhost/eventfd_link/eventfd_link.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/eventfd_link/eventfd_link.c > b/lib/librte_vhost/eventfd_link/eventfd_link.c > > index 7755dd6..62c45c8 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_vhost/eventfd_link/eventfd_link.c > > +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/eventfd_link/eventfd_link.c > > @@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ eventfd_link_ioctl(struct file *f, unsigned int > ioctl, unsigned long arg) > > * Release the existing eventfd in the source process > > */ > > spin_lock(&files->file_lock); > > + fput(file); > > filp_close(file, files); > > fdt = files_fdtable(files); > > fdt->fd[eventfd_copy.source_fd] = NULL; > Acked-by Huawei Xie <huawei.xie@intel.com> > > In future, we should remove the allocation of src eventfd, allocate a > free fd from kernel, and install it with target fd. > Well, I don't think this is correct, because this will put too much job for the kernel module making it a combiner. At the moment I propose to accept module refactoring patch to the upstream. After that the module can be reworked along with the application code. The reason is I can't work on DPDK since I have no hardware to test application at so I can't help with patch that touches application code. Pavel