[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250804155229.GY222315@ZenIV>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 16:52:29 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: always return zero on success from replace_fd()
On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 02:33:13PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> + guard(spinlock)(&files->file_lock);
> err = expand_files(files, fd);
> if (unlikely(err < 0))
> - goto out_unlock;
> - return do_dup2(files, file, fd, flags);
> + return err;
> + err = do_dup2(files, file, fd, flags);
> + if (err < 0)
> + return err;
>
> -out_unlock:
> - spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> - return err;
> + return 0;
> }
NAK. This is broken - do_dup2() drops ->file_lock. And that's why I
loathe the guard() - it's too easy to get confused *and* assume that
it will DTRT, no need to check carefully.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists