On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 09:51:46AM -0700, Hridya Valsaraju wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:02 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:40:05AM -0700, Hridya Valsaraju wrote:
> > > @@ -467,6 +466,9 @@ static int binderfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
> > > int ret;
> > > struct binderfs_info *info;
> > > struct inode *inode = NULL;
> > > + struct binderfs_device device_info = { 0 };
> > > + const char *name;
> > > + size_t len;
> > >
> > > sb->s_blocksize = PAGE_SIZE;
> > > sb->s_blocksize_bits = PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > @@ -521,7 +523,24 @@ static int binderfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
> > > if (!sb->s_root)
> > > return -ENOMEM;
> > >
> > > - return binderfs_binder_ctl_create(sb);
> > > + ret = binderfs_binder_ctl_create(sb);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + name = binder_devices_param;
> > > + for (len = strcspn(name, ","); len > 0; len = strcspn(name, ",")) {
> > > + strscpy(device_info.name, name, len + 1);
> > > + ret = binderfs_binder_device_create(inode, NULL, &device_info);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> >
> > We should probably clean up before returning... The error handling code
> > would probably be tricky to write though and it's not super common.
>
> Thank you for taking a look Dan. Did you mean cleaning up the default
> devices that were already created? They will actually be cleaned up by
> binderfs_evict_inode() during the super block's cleanup since the
> mount operation will fail due to an error here.
Yeah. I meant the binderfs_binder_device_create() from previous
iterations through this loop.
Good to know that it's handled. Thanks for taking the time to look at
this.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
