linux-toradex.git/fs/proc/generic.c, branch v2.6.31.3

proc 1/2: do PDE usecounting even for ->read_proc, ->write_proc

2009-03-30T21:14:27+00:00

struct proc_dir_entry::owner is going to be removed. Now it's only necessary
to protect PDEs which are using ->read_proc, ->write_proc hooks.

However, ->owner assignments are racy and make it very easy for someone to switch
->owner on live PDE (as some subsystems do) without fixing refcounts and so on.

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12454

So, ->owner is on death row.

Proxy file operations exist already (proc_file_operations), just bump usecount
when necessary.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan

proc: move fs/proc/inode-alloc.txt comment into a source file

2009-03-30T21:13:12+00:00

so that people will realize that it exists and can update it as needed.

Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan

constify dentry_operations: procfs

2009-03-27T18:44:01+00:00

Signed-off-by: Al Viro

proc: stop using BKL

2009-01-05T09:27:44+00:00

There are four BKL users in proc: de_put(), proc_lookup_de(),
proc_readdir_de(), proc_root_readdir(),

1) de_put()
-----------
de_put() is classic atomic_dec_and_test() refcount wrapper -- no BKL
needed. BKL doesn't matter to possible refcount leak as well.

2) proc_lookup_de()
-------------------
Walking PDE list is protected by proc_subdir_lock(), proc_get_inode() is
potentially blocking, all callers of proc_lookup_de() eventually end up
from ->lookup hooks which is protected by directory's ->i_mutex -- BKL
doesn't protect anything.

3) proc_readdir_de()
--------------------
"." and ".." part doesn't need BKL, walking PDE list is under
proc_subdir_lock, calling filldir callback is potentially blocking
because it writes to luserspace. All proc_readdir_de() callers
eventually come from ->readdir hook which is under directory's
->i_mutex -- BKL doesn't protect anything.

4) proc_root_readdir_de()
-------------------------
proc_root_readdir_de is ->readdir hook, see (3).

Since readdir hooks doesn't use BKL anymore, switch to
generic_file_llseek, since it also takes directory's i_mutex.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan

proc: use WARN() rather than printk+backtrace

2008-10-23T09:34:38+00:00

Use WARN() rather than a printk() + backtrace();
this gives a more standard format message as well as complete
information (including line numbers etc) that will be collected
by kerneloops.org

Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven 
Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan

proc: more debugging for "already registered" case

2008-09-13T21:41:50+00:00

Print parent directory name as well.

The aim is to catch non-creation of parent directory when proc_mkdir will
return NULL and all subsequent registrations go directly in /proc instead
of intended directory.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
[ Fixed insane printk string while at it.  - Linus ]
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

[PATCH] proc: inode number fixlet

2008-08-25T05:18:03+00:00

Ouch, if number taken from IDA is too big, the intent was to signal an
error, not check for overflow and still do overflowing addition.

One still needs 2^28 proc entries to notice this.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan 
Signed-off-by: Al Viro

[PATCH 2/2] proc: switch inode number allocation to IDA

2008-08-01T15:25:28+00:00

proc doesn't use "associate pointer with id" feature of IDR, so switch
to IDA.

NOTE, NOTE, NOTE:
	Do not apply if release_inode_number() still mantions MAX_ID_MASK!

Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan 
Signed-off-by: Al Viro

[PATCH 1/2] proc: fix inode number bogorithmetic

2008-08-01T15:25:27+00:00

Id which proc gets from IDR for inode number and id which proc removes
from IDR do not match. E.g. 0x11a transforms into 0x8000011a.

Which stayed unnoticed for a long time because, surprise, idr_remove()
masks out that high bit before doing anything.

All of this due to "| ~MAX_ID_MASK" in release_inode_number().

I still don't understand how it's supposed to work, because "| ~MASK"
is not an inversion for "& MAX" operation.

So, use just one nice, working addition. Make start offset unsigned int,
while I'm at it. It's longness is not used anywhere.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan 
Signed-off-by: Al Viro

Use WARN() in fs/proc/

2008-07-26T19:00:08+00:00

Use WARN() instead of a printk+WARN_ON() pair; this way the message
becomes part of the warning section for better reporting/collection.
This way, the entire if() {} section can collapse into the WARN() as well.

Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven 
Acked-by: Alexey Dobriyan 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds