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:   Fri, 30 Oct 2020 18:42:55 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@redhat.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] fs: Fix memory leaks in do_renameat2() error paths
Message-ID: <20201030184255.GP3576660@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20201030152407.43598-1-cai@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201030152407.43598-1-cai@redhat.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:24:07AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> We will need to call putname() before do_renameat2() returning -EINVAL
> to avoid memory leaks.
> 
> Fixes: 3c5499fa56f5 ("fs: make do_renameat2() take struct filename")
> Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@redhat.com>

May I ask where has the original commit been posted for review?  And why
the bleeding hell does io_uring touch rename-related codepaths in the
first place?