Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Apr 2015 08:11:25 -0400 | From | Jeff Layton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] cifs: potential missing check for posix_lock_file_wait |
| |
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:18:49 -0400 Chengyu Song <csong84@gatech.edu> wrote:
> posix_lock_file_wait may fail under certain circumstances, and its result is > usually checked/returned. But given the complexity of cifs, I'm not sure if > the result is intentially left unchecked and always expected to succeed. > > Signed-off-by: Chengyu Song <csong84@gatech.edu> > --- > fs/cifs/file.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c > index a94b3e6..beef67b 100644 > --- a/fs/cifs/file.c > +++ b/fs/cifs/file.c > @@ -1553,8 +1553,8 @@ cifs_setlk(struct file *file, struct file_lock *flock, __u32 type, > rc = server->ops->mand_unlock_range(cfile, flock, xid); > > out: > - if (flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX) > - posix_lock_file_wait(file, flock); > + if (flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX && !rc) > + rc = posix_lock_file_wait(file, flock); > return rc; > } >
(cc'ing Pavel since he wrote a lot of this code)
I think your patch looks correct -- if we (for instance) get a memory allocation failure while trying to set the local lock then I think we probably don't want to return success. So...
Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com>
| |