[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080902162624.cd9f6d7f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 16:26:24 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: fix return value of proc_reg_open() in "too late"
case
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:34:12 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
> If ->open() wasn't called, returning 0 is misleading and, theoretically,
> oopsable:
> 1. remove_proc_entry clears ->proc_fops, drops lock,
> 2. ->open "succeeds",
> 3. ->release oopses, because it assumes ->open was called (single_release()).
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> ---
>
> fs/proc/inode.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/fs/proc/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/inode.c
> @@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ static int proc_reg_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> if (!pde->proc_fops) {
> spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
> kfree(pdeo);
> - return rv;
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
> pde->pde_users++;
> open = pde->proc_fops->open;
Can this code path ever actually be executed? afacit if ->proc_fops is
ever NULL, the caller (proc_get_inode) would have already oopsed:
#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
if (!de->proc_fops->compat_ioctl)
inode->i_fop =
&proc_reg_file_ops_no_compat;
else
#endif
inode->i_fop = &proc_reg_file_ops;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists