From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH][IPVS] Don't leak sysctl tables if the scheduler registration fails Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20071204.004350.09249852.davem@davemloft.net> References: <4753D4C5.4040301@openvz.org> <20071204013647.GB28582@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xemul@openvz.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org, wensong@linux-vs.org, ja@ssi.bg To: horms@verge.net.au Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:42513 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751229AbXLDInz (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 03:43:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20071204013647.GB28582@verge.net.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Simon Horman Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:36:48 +0900 > On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 01:04:53PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > > In case we load lblc or lblcr module we can leak some sysctl > > tables if the call to register_ip_vs_scheduler() fails. > > This looks correct to me. > > > I've looked at the register_ip_vs_scheduler() code and saw, that > > the only reason to fail is the name collision, so I think that > > with some 3rd party schedulers this becomes a relevant issue. No? > > I guess so. Though presumably register_ip_vs_scheduler() could > have other modes of failure in the future. > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov > > Acked-by: Simon Horman Applied, thanks.