linux-kernel - [ 107/175] CIFS: Fix a spurious error in cifs_push_posix

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20120330194847.069292325@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:50:12 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Steve French <sfrench@...ibm.com>
Subject: [ 107/175] CIFS: Fix a spurious error in cifs_push_posix_locks

3.3-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>

commit ce85852b90a214cf577fc1b4f49d99fd7e98784a upstream.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Reported-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <sfrench@...ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 fs/cifs/file.c |   19 ++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/cifs/file.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
@@ -960,9 +960,9 @@ cifs_push_posix_locks(struct cifsFileInf
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&locks_to_send);
 
 	/*
-	 * Allocating count locks is enough because no locks can be added to
-	 * the list while we are holding cinode->lock_mutex that protects
-	 * locking operations of this inode.
+	 * Allocating count locks is enough because no FL_POSIX locks can be
+	 * added to the list while we are holding cinode->lock_mutex that
+	 * protects locking operations of this inode.
 	 */
 	for (; i < count; i++) {
 		lck = kmalloc(sizeof(struct lock_to_push), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -973,18 +973,20 @@ cifs_push_posix_locks(struct cifsFileInf
 		list_add_tail(&lck->llist, &locks_to_send);
 	}
 
-	i = 0;
 	el = locks_to_send.next;
 	lock_flocks();
 	cifs_for_each_lock(cfile->dentry->d_inode, before) {
+		flock = *before;
+		if ((flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX) == 0)
+			continue;
 		if (el == &locks_to_send) {
-			/* something is really wrong */
+			/*
+			 * The list ended. We don't have enough allocated
+			 * structures - something is really wrong.
+			 */
 			cERROR(1, "Can't push all brlocks!");
 			break;
 		}
-		flock = *before;
-		if ((flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX) == 0)
-			continue;
 		length = 1 + flock->fl_end - flock->fl_start;
 		if (flock->fl_type == F_RDLCK || flock->fl_type == F_SHLCK)
 			type = CIFS_RDLCK;
@@ -996,7 +998,6 @@ cifs_push_posix_locks(struct cifsFileInf
 		lck->length = length;
 		lck->type = type;
 		lck->offset = flock->fl_start;
-		i++;
 		el = el->next;
 	}
 	unlock_flocks();


--
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/