Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754795AbbETSQq (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2015 14:16:46 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com ([209.85.215.43]:33580 "EHLO mail-la0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754396AbbETSQo (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2015 14:16:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150403081125.7ad668b6@tlielax.poochiereds.net> References: <1427242729-11515-1-git-send-email-csong84@gatech.edu> <20150403081125.7ad668b6@tlielax.poochiereds.net> From: Steve French Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:16:21 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cifs: potential missing check for posix_lock_file_wait To: Jeff Layton Cc: Chengyu Song , Steve French , "linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" , samba-technical , LKML , taesoo@gatech.edu, changwoo@gatech.edu, sanidhya@gatech.edu, Byoungyoung Lee , Pavel Shilovsky Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1684 Lines: 50 merged into cifs-2.6.git for-next On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:18:49 -0400 > Chengyu Song 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 >> --- >> 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 -- Thanks, Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/