Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 19 Jul 2020 17:57:46 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     "Xu, Yanfei" <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] userfaultfd: avoid the duplicated release for
 userfaultfd_ctx
Message-ID: <20200719165746.GJ2786714@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20200714161203.31879-1-yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
 <e3cbdb26-9bfb-55e7-c9a7-deb7f8831754@windriver.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e3cbdb26-9bfb-55e7-c9a7-deb7f8831754@windriver.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:58:34PM +0800, Xu, Yanfei wrote:
> ping Al Viro
> 
> Could you please help to review this patch? Thanks a lot.

That's -next, right?  As for the patch itself...  Frankly,
Daniel's patch looks seriously wrong.
	* why has O_CLOEXEC been quietly smuggled in?  It's
a userland ABI change, for fsck sake...
	* the double-put you've spotted
	* the whole out: thing - just make it
	if (IS_ERR(file)) {
		userfaultfd_ctx_put(ctx);
		return PTR_ERR(file);
	}
	and be done with that.