Hi David,
On 2024/8/28 18:37, David Howells wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
In netfs_init() or fscache_proc_init(), we create dentry under 'fs/netfs',
but in netfs_exit(), we only delete the proc entry of 'fs/netfs' without
deleting its subtree. This triggers the following WARNING:
==================================================================
remove_proc_entry: removing non-empty directory 'fs/netfs', leaking at least
'requests'
WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 566 at fs/proc/generic.c:717 remove_proc_entry+0x160/0x1c0
Modules linked in: netfs(-)
CPU: 4 UID: 0 PID: 566 Comm: rmmod Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3 #860
RIP: 0010:remove_proc_entry+0x160/0x1c0
Call Trace:
<TASK>
netfs_exit+0x12/0x620 [netfs]
__do_sys_delete_module.isra.0+0x14c/0x2e0
do_syscall_64+0x4b/0x110
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
==================================================================
Therefore use remove_proc_subtree instead() of remove_proc_entry() to
fix the above problem.
Fixes: 7eb5b3e3a0a5 ("netfs, fscache: Move /proc/fs/fscache to /proc/fs/netfs and
put in a symlink")
Cc: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <[email protected]>
Should remove_proc_entry() just remove the entire subtree anyway?
Yeah, in general, when we remove a proc entry, we don't care if it has
subtrees. But I'm not sure if there are certain scenarios where entries
must be removed in a certain order .
But you can add:
Acked-by: David Howells <[email protected]>
David
Thanks for your ack!
--
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li
