Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: Initialize status in v9fs_file_do_lock.
Kirill A. Shutemov wrote on Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 03:20:51PM +0200: > > Your patch will not BUG() if status is junk, BUT if status uninitialized > > value is 0 and p9_client_lock_dotl then we'll return res=0 (success) and > > not unlock before returning. My patch makes sure we'll return -ENOLCK. > > No, if p9_client_lock_dotl() return 0 it must set status. If it's not, > that's bug on p9_client_lock_dotl() side and must be fixed. I had that bit right, but I only remembered your second patch -- sorry. It should be fine with your patchES, please disregard this one. -- Dominique Martinet, CEA -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: Initialize status in v9fs_file_do_lock.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:07:23PM +0100, Dominique Martinet wrote: > Kirill A. Shutemov wrote on Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:33:53PM +0200: > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:56:07PM +0100, Dominique Martinet wrote: > > > If p9_client_lock_dotl returns an error, status is possibly never filled > > > but will be used in the following switch. > > > Initializing it to P9_LOCK_ERROR makes sur we will return an error and > > > cleanup (and not hit the default case). > > > > That's what my patch[1] fixes. > > > > http://marc.info/?i=1419858019-116944-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov%40linux.intel.com > > Actually, it's slightly different and still worth adding (mine if we > apply your's first and your's if we apply mine first - don't think > they'll conflict. I even reworded the (too old!) commit message to fit > with your patch :)) > > Your patch will not BUG() if status is junk, BUT if status uninitialized > value is 0 and p9_client_lock_dotl then we'll return res=0 (success) and > not unlock before returning. My patch makes sure we'll return -ENOLCK. No, if p9_client_lock_dotl() return 0 it must set status. If it's not, that's bug on p9_client_lock_dotl() side and must be fixed. -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: Initialize status in v9fs_file_do_lock.
Kirill A. Shutemov wrote on Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:33:53PM +0200: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:56:07PM +0100, Dominique Martinet wrote: > > If p9_client_lock_dotl returns an error, status is possibly never filled > > but will be used in the following switch. > > Initializing it to P9_LOCK_ERROR makes sur we will return an error and > > cleanup (and not hit the default case). > > That's what my patch[1] fixes. > > http://marc.info/?i=1419858019-116944-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov%40linux.intel.com Actually, it's slightly different and still worth adding (mine if we apply your's first and your's if we apply mine first - don't think they'll conflict. I even reworded the (too old!) commit message to fit with your patch :)) Your patch will not BUG() if status is junk, BUT if status uninitialized value is 0 and p9_client_lock_dotl then we'll return res=0 (success) and not unlock before returning. My patch makes sure we'll return -ENOLCK. Likewise, if we only apply my patch then a rogue server could BUG() a client, so we want your's anyway. -- Dominique Martinet, CEA -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: Initialize status in v9fs_file_do_lock.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:56:07PM +0100, Dominique Martinet wrote: > If p9_client_lock_dotl returns an error, status is possibly never filled > but will be used in the following switch. > Initializing it to P9_LOCK_ERROR makes sur we will return an error and > cleanup (and not hit the default case). That's what my patch[1] fixes. http://marc.info/?i=1419858019-116944-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov%40linux.intel.com -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: Initialize status in v9fs_file_do_lock.
Kirill A. Shutemov wrote on Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:33:53PM +0200: On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:56:07PM +0100, Dominique Martinet wrote: If p9_client_lock_dotl returns an error, status is possibly never filled but will be used in the following switch. Initializing it to P9_LOCK_ERROR makes sur we will return an error and cleanup (and not hit the default case). That's what my patch[1] fixes. http://marc.info/?i=1419858019-116944-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov%40linux.intel.com Actually, it's slightly different and still worth adding (mine if we apply your's first and your's if we apply mine first - don't think they'll conflict. I even reworded the (too old!) commit message to fit with your patch :)) Your patch will not BUG() if status is junk, BUT if status uninitialized value is 0 and p9_client_lock_dotl then we'll return res=0 (success) and not unlock before returning. My patch makes sure we'll return -ENOLCK. Likewise, if we only apply my patch then a rogue server could BUG() a client, so we want your's anyway. -- Dominique Martinet, CEA -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: Initialize status in v9fs_file_do_lock.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:07:23PM +0100, Dominique Martinet wrote: Kirill A. Shutemov wrote on Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:33:53PM +0200: On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:56:07PM +0100, Dominique Martinet wrote: If p9_client_lock_dotl returns an error, status is possibly never filled but will be used in the following switch. Initializing it to P9_LOCK_ERROR makes sur we will return an error and cleanup (and not hit the default case). That's what my patch[1] fixes. http://marc.info/?i=1419858019-116944-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov%40linux.intel.com Actually, it's slightly different and still worth adding (mine if we apply your's first and your's if we apply mine first - don't think they'll conflict. I even reworded the (too old!) commit message to fit with your patch :)) Your patch will not BUG() if status is junk, BUT if status uninitialized value is 0 and p9_client_lock_dotl then we'll return res=0 (success) and not unlock before returning. My patch makes sure we'll return -ENOLCK. No, if p9_client_lock_dotl() return 0 it must set status. If it's not, that's bug on p9_client_lock_dotl() side and must be fixed. -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: Initialize status in v9fs_file_do_lock.
Kirill A. Shutemov wrote on Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 03:20:51PM +0200: Your patch will not BUG() if status is junk, BUT if status uninitialized value is 0 and p9_client_lock_dotl then we'll return res=0 (success) and not unlock before returning. My patch makes sure we'll return -ENOLCK. No, if p9_client_lock_dotl() return 0 it must set status. If it's not, that's bug on p9_client_lock_dotl() side and must be fixed. I had that bit right, but I only remembered your second patch -- sorry. It should be fine with your patchES, please disregard this one. -- Dominique Martinet, CEA -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: Initialize status in v9fs_file_do_lock.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:56:07PM +0100, Dominique Martinet wrote: If p9_client_lock_dotl returns an error, status is possibly never filled but will be used in the following switch. Initializing it to P9_LOCK_ERROR makes sur we will return an error and cleanup (and not hit the default case). That's what my patch[1] fixes. http://marc.info/?i=1419858019-116944-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov%40linux.intel.com -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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/
