>> Subject: perf, trace: Fix module leak >> From: Li Zefan <[email protected]> >> Date: Wed Sep 01 12:58:43 CEST 2010 >> >> Commit 1c024eca (perf, trace: Optimize tracepoints by using >> per-tracepoint-per-cpu hlist to track events) caused a module refcount >> leak. >> >> Tested-by: Avi Kivity <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> >> LKML-Reference: <[email protected]> >> --- >> kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c >> =================================================================== >> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c >> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c >> @@ -91,6 +91,8 @@ int perf_trace_init(struct perf_event *p >> tp_event->class && tp_event->class->reg && >> try_module_get(tp_event->mod)) { >> ret = perf_trace_event_init(tp_event, p_event); >> + if (ret) >> + module_put(tp_event->mod); >> break; >> } >> } >> @@ -147,6 +149,7 @@ void perf_trace_destroy(struct perf_even >> } >> } >> out: >> + module_put(tp_event->mod); >> mutex_unlock(&event_mutex); >> } >> >> > > Thanks for fixing this. > > However, can we split this in two patches to ease the backport? > > The lack of a module_put() after perf_trace_init() failure is there for a > while > (the backport needs to start in 2.6.32).
The failure should be a rare case, I don't think this has to be backported? > > But the lack of a module_put in the destroy path needs a .35 backport only. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
