Re: [PATCH] early init: open /dev/console with O_LARGEFILE

From: Arvind Sankar
Date: Wed Jan 01 2020 - 17:50:55 EST

On Wed, Jan 01, 2020 at 01:39:00PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 10:32 AM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Also, this shouldn't impact the current issue I think, but won't doing
> > filp_open followed by 3 f_dupfd's cause the file->f_count to become 4
> > but with only 3 open fd's? Don't we have to do an fd_install for the
> > first one and only 2 f_dupfd's?
> I think *this* is the real reason for the odd regression.
> Because we're leaking a file count, the original /dev/console stays
> open, and we end up never calling file->f_op->release().
> So we don't call tty_release() on that original /dev/console open, and
> one effect of that is that we never then call session_clear_tty(),
> which should make sure that all the processes in that session ID have
> their controlling tty (signal->tty pointer) cleared.
> And if that original controlling tty wasn't cleared, then subsequent
> calls to set the controlling tty won't do anything, and who knows what
> odd session leader confusion we might have.
> youling, can you check if - instead of the revert - this simple 'add
> an fput' fixes your warning.
> I'm not saying that the revert is wrong at this point, but honestly,
> I'd like to avoid the "we revert because we didn't understand what
> went wrong". It would be good to go "Aaaahhhh, _that_ was the
> problem".
> Linus

Shouldn't that only affect init though? The getty's it spawns should be
in their own sessions.