[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250804180046-e3025fef-b610-4e4f-8878-1162e0e8975c@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 18:02:39 +0200
From: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 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 04:52:29PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> 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.
To be fair I also got this wrong in my original v2 patch not using guard().
I'll send a fixed version tomorrow.
Thomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists