Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 08/42] make sure do_dentry_open() won't return positive as an error
Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 03:21:32 +0100
Message-Id: <20180711022206.12571-8-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20180711022206.12571-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20180711021136.GN30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180711022206.12571-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

An ->open() instances really, really should not be doing that.  There's
a lot of places e.g. around atomic_open() that could be confused by that,
so let's catch that early.

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
---
 fs/open.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
index 76c56966e297..558802e66e00 100644
--- a/fs/open.c
+++ b/fs/open.c
@@ -812,6 +812,10 @@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file *f,
 	return 0;
 
 cleanup_all:
+	if (unlikely(error > 0)) {
+		WARN_ON(1);
+		error = -EINVAL;
+	}
 	fops_put(f->f_op);
 	if (f->f_mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
 		put_write_access(inode);
-- 
2.11.0