On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 06:56:49PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 05:17:04PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> > -static struct posix_acl *__v9fs_get_acl(struct p9_fid *fid, char *name)
> > +static int v9fs_fid_get_acl(struct p9_fid *fid, const char *name,
> > + struct posix_acl **kacl)
> > {
> > ssize_t size;
> > void *value = NULL;
> > struct posix_acl *acl = NULL;
> >
> > size = v9fs_fid_xattr_get(fid, name, NULL, 0);
> > - if (size > 0) {
> > - value = kzalloc(size, GFP_NOFS);
> > - if (!value)
> > - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > - size = v9fs_fid_xattr_get(fid, name, value, size);
> > - if (size > 0) {
> > - acl = posix_acl_from_xattr(&init_user_ns, value, size);
> > - if (IS_ERR(acl))
> > - goto err_out;
> > - }
> > - } else if (size == -ENODATA || size == 0 ||
> > - size == -ENOSYS || size == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
> > - acl = NULL;
> > - } else
> > - acl = ERR_PTR(-EIO);
> > + if (size <= 0)
> > + goto out;
> >
> > -err_out:
> > + /* just return the size */
> > + if (!kacl)
> > + goto out;
>
> How can that happen? Both callers are passing addresses of local variables
> as the third argument. And what's the point of that kacl thing, anyway?
> Same callers would be much happier if you returned acl or ERR_PTR()...
Yeah, my bad. I had an initial draft just to get something to test where
I returned it through an return argument instead of the function. Seems
I missed to fix that spot. Thanks, fixed and also massaged the callers a bit.
