Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]:65225 "EHLO mail-vc0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751821AbaG0PNv (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:13:51 -0400 Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id le20so1190879vcb.28 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:13:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140727131917.GA32153@infradead.org> References: <1406375881-18837-1-git-send-email-andrey.krieger.utkin@gmail.com> <20140727131917.GA32153@infradead.org> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:13:50 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs3_list_one_acl(): check get_acl() result with IS_ERR_OR_NULL From: Trond Myklebust To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Andrey Utkin , Linux Kernel mailing list , Linux NFS Mailing List , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Russell King Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 02:58:01PM +0300, Andrey Utkin wrote: >> There was a check for result being not NULL. But get_acl() may return >> NULL, or ERR_PTR, or actual pointer. >> The purpose of the function where current change is done is to "list >> ACLs only when they are available", so any error condition of get_acl() >> mustn't be elevated, and returning 0 there is still valid. >> >> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81111 >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Utkin > > Looks good, thanks! > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > > should probably get a cc to stable as the original patch has one > as well. Why are we not passing the error code back to the caller here in the case where we have one? One of the main purposes of returning an error in get_acl() is to ensure that we pass -EOPNOTSUPP if the operation fails due to lack of server support. Cheers Trond -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@primarydata.com