The cache_size field of copen is specified by the user daemon.
If cache_size < 0, then the OPEN request is expected to fail,
while copen itself shall succeed. However, returning 0 is indeed
unexpected when cache_size is an invalid error code.
Fix this by returning error when cache_size is an invalid error code.
Fixes: c8383054506c ("cachefiles: notify the user daemon when looking up cookie")
Signed-off-by: Sun Ke <[email protected]>
Suggested-by: Jeffle Xu <[email protected]>
Suggested-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
v4: update the code suggested by Dan
v3: update the commit log suggested by Jingbo.
fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c | 10 +++++++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c b/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
index 1fee702d5529..7e1586bd5cf3 100644
--- a/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
+++ b/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
@@ -158,9 +158,13 @@ int cachefiles_ondemand_copen(struct cachefiles_cache *cache, char *args)
/* fail OPEN request if daemon reports an error */
if (size < 0) {
- if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(size))
- size = -EINVAL;
- req->error = size;
+ if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(size)) {
+ req->error = -EINVAL;
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ } else {
+ req->error = size;
+ ret = 0;
+ }
goto out;
}
--
2.31.1
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:35:15AM +0800, Sun Ke wrote:
> The cache_size field of copen is specified by the user daemon.
> If cache_size < 0, then the OPEN request is expected to fail,
> while copen itself shall succeed. However, returning 0 is indeed
> unexpected when cache_size is an invalid error code.
>
> Fix this by returning error when cache_size is an invalid error code.
>
> Fixes: c8383054506c ("cachefiles: notify the user daemon when looking up cookie")
> Signed-off-by: Sun Ke <[email protected]>
> Suggested-by: Jeffle Xu <[email protected]>
> Suggested-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Gao Xiang <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:35:15AM +0800, Sun Ke wrote:
> The cache_size field of copen is specified by the user daemon.
> If cache_size < 0, then the OPEN request is expected to fail,
> while copen itself shall succeed. However, returning 0 is indeed
> unexpected when cache_size is an invalid error code.
>
> Fix this by returning error when cache_size is an invalid error code.
>
> Fixes: c8383054506c ("cachefiles: notify the user daemon when looking up cookie")
> Signed-off-by: Sun Ke <[email protected]>
> Suggested-by: Jeffle Xu <[email protected]>
> Suggested-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> ---
> v4: update the code suggested by Dan
> v3: update the commit log suggested by Jingbo.
Thanks!
regards,
dan carpenter
On 8/26/22 10:35 AM, Sun Ke wrote:
> The cache_size field of copen is specified by the user daemon.
> If cache_size < 0, then the OPEN request is expected to fail,
> while copen itself shall succeed. However, returning 0 is indeed
> unexpected when cache_size is an invalid error code.
>
> Fix this by returning error when cache_size is an invalid error code.
>
> Fixes: c8383054506c ("cachefiles: notify the user daemon when looking up cookie")
> Signed-off-by: Sun Ke <[email protected]>
> Suggested-by: Jeffle Xu <[email protected]>
> Suggested-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Jingbo Xu <[email protected]>
Thanks Sun. Also thanks Dan for the suggestion.
Jingbo Xu
> ---
> v4: update the code suggested by Dan
> v3: update the commit log suggested by Jingbo.
> fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c b/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
> index 1fee702d5529..7e1586bd5cf3 100644
> --- a/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
> +++ b/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
> @@ -158,9 +158,13 @@ int cachefiles_ondemand_copen(struct cachefiles_cache *cache, char *args)
>
> /* fail OPEN request if daemon reports an error */
> if (size < 0) {
> - if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(size))
> - size = -EINVAL;
> - req->error = size;
> + if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(size)) {
> + req->error = -EINVAL;
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + } else {
> + req->error = size;
> + ret = 0;
> + }
> goto out;
> }
>
--
Thanks,
Jingbo
Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks!
Can I put that down as a Reviewed-by?
David
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 02:52:19PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks!
>
> Can I put that down as a Reviewed-by?
Sure.
Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
regards,
dan carpenter