[PATCH] fix net/rxrpc/proc.c

[PATCH] fix net/rxrpc/proc.c

[Chris Wright]

A recent change in 2.5.69-bk from Yoshfuji broke compilation of rxrpc
code.  It erroneously adds an owner field to the rxrpc_proc_peers_ops
seq_operations.  Fix below.

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net

===== net/rxrpc/proc.c 1.3 vs edited =====
--- 1.3/net/rxrpc/proc.c	Sat May 10 11:46:35 2003
+++ edited/net/rxrpc/proc.c	Mon May 12 17:25:12 2003
@@ -52,7 +52,6 @@
 static int rxrpc_proc_peers_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v);
 
 static struct seq_operations rxrpc_proc_peers_ops = {
-	.owner	= THIS_MODULE,
 	.start	= rxrpc_proc_peers_start,
 	.next	= rxrpc_proc_peers_next,
 	.stop	= rxrpc_proc_peers_stop,

Re: [PATCH] fix net/rxrpc/proc.c

[David S. Miller]

On Mon, 2003-05-12 at 17:38, Chris Wright wrote:
> A recent change in 2.5.69-bk from Yoshfuji broke compilation of rxrpc
> code.  It erroneously adds an owner field to the rxrpc_proc_peers_ops
> seq_operations.  Fix below.

Why is it "erroneous"?  Just add the proper linux/module.h include
to net/rxrpc/proc.c instead of spewing baseless claims.

-- 
David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com>

Re: [PATCH] fix net/rxrpc/proc.c

[Chris Wright]

* David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-05-12 at 17:38, Chris Wright wrote:
> > A recent change in 2.5.69-bk from Yoshfuji broke compilation of rxrpc
> > code.  It erroneously adds an owner field to the rxrpc_proc_peers_ops
> > seq_operations.  Fix below.
> 
> Why is it "erroneous"?  Just add the proper linux/module.h include
> to net/rxrpc/proc.c instead of spewing baseless claims.

Sorry, if I'm missing the obvious, but looking at my current bk tree I
see this:

include/linux/seq_file.h

struct seq_operations {
	void * (*start) (struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos);
	void (*stop) (struct seq_file *m, void *v);
	void * (*next) (struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *pos);
	int (*show) (struct seq_file *m, void *v);
};

It looks to me like there is a simple mistake of seq_operations !=
file_operations when adding .owner = THIS_MODULE to the file_operations.

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net

Re: [PATCH] fix net/rxrpc/proc.c

[YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明]

In article <20030512190036.B20068@figure1.int.wirex.com> (at Mon, 12 May 2003 19:00:36 -0700), Chris Wright <chris@wirex.com> says:

> * David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-05-12 at 17:38, Chris Wright wrote:
> > > A recent change in 2.5.69-bk from Yoshfuji broke compilation of rxrpc
> > > code.  It erroneously adds an owner field to the rxrpc_proc_peers_ops
> > > seq_operations.  Fix below.
> > 
> > Why is it "erroneous"?  Just add the proper linux/module.h include
> > to net/rxrpc/proc.c instead of spewing baseless claims.
> 
> Sorry, if I'm missing the obvious, but looking at my current bk tree I
> see this:
> 
> include/linux/seq_file.h
> 
> struct seq_operations {
> 	void * (*start) (struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos);
> 	void (*stop) (struct seq_file *m, void *v);
> 	void * (*next) (struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *pos);
> 	int (*show) (struct seq_file *m, void *v);
> };
> 
> It looks to me like there is a simple mistake of seq_operations !=
> file_operations when adding .owner = THIS_MODULE to the file_operations.

Sorry, it's my mistake.   David, please apply his patch.

--yoshfuji

Re: [PATCH] fix net/rxrpc/proc.c

[Chris Wright]

* YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@?(B (yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org) wrote:
> 
> Sorry, it's my mistake.   David, please apply his patch.

Thanks, sorry, I should have Cc:'d you in the first place, my apology.
Seems like the rxrpc_proc_calls_fops should get an owner as well?  (relative
to the last patch)

thanks,
-chris

===== net/rxrpc/proc.c 1.3 vs edited =====
--- 1.3/net/rxrpc/proc.c	Sat May 10 11:46:35 2003
+++ edited/net/rxrpc/proc.c	Mon May 12 19:56:20 2003
@@ -102,6 +101,7 @@
 };
 
 static struct file_operations rxrpc_proc_calls_fops = {
+	.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
 	.open		= rxrpc_proc_calls_open,
 	.read		= seq_read,
 	.llseek		= seq_lseek,

Re: [PATCH] fix net/rxrpc/proc.c

[David S. Miller]

   From: Chris Wright <chris@wirex.com>
   Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 20:05:30 -0700

   * YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@?(B (yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org) wrote:
   > 
   > Sorry, it's my mistake.   David, please apply his patch.
   
   Thanks, sorry, I should have Cc:'d you in the first place, my apology.
   Seems like the rxrpc_proc_calls_fops should get an owner as well?  (relative
   to the last patch)
   
Thanks for working all of this out, both changes applied to
my tree.

Re: [PATCH] fix net/rxrpc/proc.c

[YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明]

In article <20030512200530.I19432@figure1.int.wirex.com> (at Mon, 12 May 2003 20:05:30 -0700), Chris Wright <chris@wirex.com> says:

> * YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@?(B (yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org) wrote:
> > 
> > Sorry, it's my mistake.   David, please apply his patch.
> 
> Thanks, sorry, I should have Cc:'d you in the first place, my apology.
> Seems like the rxrpc_proc_calls_fops should get an owner as well?  (relative
> to the last patch)

Yes. Thanks for pointing out.

-- 
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF  80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA

Re: [PATCH] fix net/rxrpc/proc.c

[David Howells]

> Thanks, sorry, I should have Cc:'d you in the first place, my apology.
> Seems like the rxrpc_proc_calls_fops should get an owner as well?  (relative
> to the last patch)

Should all file_operations tables associated with this be "owned" in this
manner?

David

Re: [PATCH] fix net/rxrpc/proc.c

[David Howells]

> > Thanks, sorry, I should have Cc:'d you in the first place, my apology.
> > Seems like the rxrpc_proc_calls_fops should get an owner as well?
> > (relative to the last patch)
> 
> Should all file_operations tables associated with this be "owned" in this
> manner?

Hmmm... actually, looking at the code, it ought to be unnecessary as the proc
entries are "owned", eg:

	int rxrpc_proc_init(void)
	{
		struct proc_dir_entry *p;

		proc_rxrpc = proc_mkdir("rxrpc",proc_net);
		if (!proc_rxrpc)
			goto error;
		proc_rxrpc->owner = THIS_MODULE;

	...
	}

David