On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:18:49 -0400
Chengyu Song <[email protected]> wrote:
> posix_lock_file_wait may fail under certain circumstances, and its result is
> usually checked/returned. But given the complexity of cifs, I'm not sure if
> the result is intentially left unchecked and always expected to succeed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chengyu Song <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/cifs/file.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
> index a94b3e6..beef67b 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
> @@ -1553,8 +1553,8 @@ cifs_setlk(struct file *file, struct file_lock *flock, __u32 type,
> rc = server->ops->mand_unlock_range(cfile, flock, xid);
>
> out:
> - if (flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX)
> - posix_lock_file_wait(file, flock);
> + if (flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX && !rc)
> + rc = posix_lock_file_wait(file, flock);
> return rc;
> }
>
(cc'ing Pavel since he wrote a lot of this code)
I think your patch looks correct -- if we (for instance) get a memory
allocation failure while trying to set the local lock then I think we
probably don't want to return success. So...
Acked-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
merged into cifs-2.6.git for-next
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:18:49 -0400
> Chengyu Song <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> posix_lock_file_wait may fail under certain circumstances, and its result is
>> usually checked/returned. But given the complexity of cifs, I'm not sure if
>> the result is intentially left unchecked and always expected to succeed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chengyu Song <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> fs/cifs/file.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
>> index a94b3e6..beef67b 100644
>> --- a/fs/cifs/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
>> @@ -1553,8 +1553,8 @@ cifs_setlk(struct file *file, struct file_lock *flock, __u32 type,
>> rc = server->ops->mand_unlock_range(cfile, flock, xid);
>>
>> out:
>> - if (flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX)
>> - posix_lock_file_wait(file, flock);
>> + if (flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX && !rc)
>> + rc = posix_lock_file_wait(file, flock);
>> return rc;
>> }
>>
>
> (cc'ing Pavel since he wrote a lot of this code)
>
> I think your patch looks correct -- if we (for instance) get a memory
> allocation failure while trying to set the local lock then I think we
> probably don't want to return success. So...
>
> Acked-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
--
Thanks,
Steve