On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:18:49 -0400
Chengyu Song <cson...@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 <cson...@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.lay...@primarydata.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
