Re: [Patch] Wrong error handling in nfs4acl

[Neil Brown]

On Tuesday March 7, snakebyte@xxxxxx wrote:
> hi,
> 
> this fixes coverity id #3. Coverity detected dead code,
> since the == -1 comparison only returns 0 or 1 to error.
> Therefore the if ( error < 0 ) statement was always false.
> Seems that this was an if( error = nfs4... ) statement some time
> ago, which got broken during cleanup.
> Just compile tested.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sesterhenn <snakebyte@xxxxxx>
> 
> 
> --- linux-2.6.16-rc5-mm1/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c.orig	2006-03-07 20:52:34.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.16-rc5-mm1/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c	2006-03-07 20:53:08.000000000 +0100
> @@ -790,7 +790,7 @@ nfs4_acl_split(struct nfs4_acl *acl, str
>  			continue;
>  
>  		error = nfs4_acl_add_ace(dacl, ace->type, ace->flag,
> -				ace->access_mask, ace->whotype, ace->who) == -1;
> +				ace->access_mask, ace->whotype, ace->who);
>  		if (error < 0)
>  			goto out;
>  
> 

Yeh, thanks....
I think we want to change nfs4_acl_add_ace to return -ENOMEM rather
than -1 too.

Bruce?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/