From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Nov 15 17:13:22 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBAA416A4CF
	for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8782E43FBD
	for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:13:21 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAG1D7eF084152;
	Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:13:12 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200311160113.hAG1D7eF084152@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:13:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: l.ertl@univie.ac.at
In-Reply-To: <20031111192944.K678@korben.in.tern>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: named pipes memory leak?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:13:23 -0000

On 11 Nov, Lukas Ertl wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Lukas Ertl wrote:
> 
>> Unfortunately, we are still seeing a problem here: we are running uvscan
>> (virus scanner), and while running it we are still seeing increasing unpcb
>> usage and orphaned unix domain sockets.
>>
>> We added some debug printfs to the fifo routines and found out that
>> fifo_cleanup is called from fifo_close with a vnode which has v_usecount
>> == 2 so the socket close calls aren't reached.
> 
> Sorry, I probably missed an important part: we're creating the FIFOs on
> nullfs mounts - the test script works great on plain UFS mounts, but the
> null layer seems to VREF the vnode once again, so v_usecount is 2, thus it
> is missong the check in fifo_cleanup().

I just committed a fix for this.  Fifo_vnops.c 1.91 should not leak
memory and sockets when used with nullfs.