Commit b3656d82 authored by NeilBrown's avatar NeilBrown Committed by Linus Torvalds

seq_file: document how per-entry resources are managed.

Patch series "Fix some seq_file users that were recently broken".

A recent change to seq_file broke some users which were using seq_file
in a non-"standard" way ...  though the "standard" isn't documented, so
they can be excused.  The result is a possible leak - of memory in one
case, of references to a 'transport' in the other.

These three patches:
 1/ document and explain the problem
 2/ fix the problem user in x86
 3/ fix the problem user in net/sctp

This patch (of 3):

Users of seq_file will sometimes find it convenient to take a resource,
such as a lock or memory allocation, in the ->start or ->next operations.
These are per-entry resources, distinct from per-session resources which
are taken in ->start and released in ->stop.

The preferred management of these is release the resource on the
subsequent call to ->next or ->stop.

However prior to Commit 1f4aace6 ("fs/seq_file.c: simplify seq_file
iteration code and interface") it happened that ->show would always be
called after ->start or ->next, and a few users chose to release the
resource in ->show.

This is no longer reliable.  Since the mentioned commit, ->next will
always come after a successful ->show (to ensure m->index is updated
correctly), so the original ordering cannot be maintained.

This patch updates the documentation to clearly state the required
behaviour.  Other patches will fix the few problematic users.

[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix typo, per Willy]

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/161248518659.21478.2484341937387294998.stgit@noble1
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/161248539020.21478.3147971477400875336.stgit@noble1
Fixes: 1f4aace6 ("fs/seq_file.c: simplify seq_file iteration code and interface")
Signed-off-by: default avatarNeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
parent 3159ed57
...@@ -217,6 +217,12 @@ between the calls to start() and stop(), so holding a lock during that time ...@@ -217,6 +217,12 @@ between the calls to start() and stop(), so holding a lock during that time
is a reasonable thing to do. The seq_file code will also avoid taking any is a reasonable thing to do. The seq_file code will also avoid taking any
other locks while the iterator is active. other locks while the iterator is active.
The iterater value returned by start() or next() is guaranteed to be
passed to a subsequent next() or stop() call. This allows resources
such as locks that were taken to be reliably released. There is *no*
guarantee that the iterator will be passed to show(), though in practice
it often will be.
Formatted output Formatted output
================ ================
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment