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  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]
Date:	Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:13:50 -0400
From:	Trond Myklebust <>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc:	Andrey Utkin <>,
	Linux Kernel mailing list <>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <>,,
	Russell King <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs3_list_one_acl(): check get_acl() result with IS_ERR_OR_NULL

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:
>> 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.


Trond Myklebust

Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists