On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:04:35 +0200
Andi Shyti <andi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In the cifs_reopen_file function, if the following statement is
> asserted:
>
> (tcon->unix_ext && cap_unix(tcon->ses) &&
> (CIFS_UNIX_POSIX_PATH_OPS_CAP &
> (tcon->fsUnixInfo.Capability)))
>
> and we succeed to open with cifs_posix_open, the function jumps
> to the label reopen_success and checks for oparms.reconnect
> which is not initialized.
>
> This issue has been reported by scan.coverity.com
>
> Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/cifs/file.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
> index 1e57f36..7e36ae3 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
> @@ -647,6 +647,7 @@ cifs_reopen_file(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile, bool can_flush)
> oflags, &oplock, &cfile->fid.netfid, xid);
> if (rc == 0) {
> cifs_dbg(FYI, "posix reopen succeeded\n");
> + oparms.reconnect = true;
> goto reopen_success;
> }
> /*
Still doesn't do much to improve this code, but that fix shouldn't
break anything.
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
