On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 08:14:52PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Umm... After looking at what POSIX actually says... There is an issue, > > all right. Thanks for spotting. Fix follows: > > > > Return the right error value when dup2() or dup3() newfd argument is too large > > I don't think this fixes anything. > > You're fixing replace_fd(), but dup2/dup3 don't actually *use* that. > They have their own RLIMIT_NOFILE check and return -EMFILE there. Ow... Moral: when :r in vi picks the file you've just scp'ed there from another xterm, it might be the variant you've sent there a couple of minutes prior ;-/ You are right, of course - sys_dup3() gets the same change (sys_dup2() doesn't; dup2(n, n) with n opened and currently beyond rlimit is not worth bothering *and* we'd never failed with EBADF in that case anyway; all other cases are covered by sys_dup3() change). Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- diff --git a/fs/file.c b/fs/file.c index ec20de9..603c7b5 100644 --- a/fs/file.c +++ b/fs/file.c @@ -894,7 +894,7 @@ int replace_fd(unsigned fd, struct file *file, unsigned flags) return __close_fd(files, fd); if (fd >= rlimit(RLIMIT_NOFILE)) - return -EMFILE; + return -EBADF; spin_lock(&files->file_lock); err = expand_files(files, fd); @@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(dup3, unsigned int, oldfd, unsigned int, newfd, int, flags) return -EINVAL; if (newfd >= rlimit(RLIMIT_NOFILE)) - return -EMFILE; + return -BADF; spin_lock(&files->file_lock); err = expand_files(files, newfd); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
