linux-kernel - [RFC][PATCH 08/42] make sure do_dentry_open() won't return positive as an error

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: <20180711022206.12571-8-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 03:21:32 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 08/42] make sure do_dentry_open() won't return positive as an error

From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>

An ->open() instances really, really should not be doing that.  There's
a lot of places e.g. around atomic_open() that could be confused by that,
so let's catch that early.

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
---
 fs/open.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
index 76c56966e297..558802e66e00 100644
--- a/fs/open.c
+++ b/fs/open.c
@@ -812,6 +812,10 @@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file *f,
 	return 0;
 
 cleanup_all:
+	if (unlikely(error > 0)) {
+		WARN_ON(1);
+		error = -EINVAL;
+	}
 	fops_put(f->f_op);
 	if (f->f_mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
 		put_write_access(inode);
-- 
2.11.0