Re: [PATCH] proc: fix return value of proc_reg_open() in "too late"case

[Andrew Morton]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:34:12 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> If ->open() wasn't called, returning 0 is misleading and, theoretically,
> oopsable:
> 1. remove_proc_entry clears ->proc_fops, drops lock,
> 2. ->open "succeeds",
> 3. ->release oopses, because it assumes ->open was called (single_release()).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 
>  fs/proc/inode.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- a/fs/proc/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/inode.c
> @@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ static int proc_reg_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>  	if (!pde->proc_fops) {
>  		spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
>  		kfree(pdeo);
> -		return rv;
> +		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  	pde->pde_users++;
>  	open = pde->proc_fops->open;

Can this code path ever actually be executed?  afacit if ->proc_fops is
ever NULL, the caller (proc_get_inode) would have already oopsed:

#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
				if (!de->proc_fops->compat_ioctl)
					inode->i_fop =
						&proc_reg_file_ops_no_compat;
				else
#endif
					inode->i_fop = &proc_reg_file_ops;

--
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/