On Fri, 9 May 2014 14:07:44 -0400
Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:21:29PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> > - /* Ensure that fl->fl_filp has compatible f_mode */
> > - switch (l->l_type) {
> > - case F_RDLCK:
> > - if (!(filp->f_mode & FMODE_READ))
> > - return -EBADF;
> > - break;
> > - case F_WRLCK:
> > - if (!(filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
> > - return -EBADF;
> > - break;
> > - }
>
>
> > +check_fmode_for_setlk(struct file_lock *fl)
> > +{
> > + switch (fl->fl_type) {
> > + case F_RDLCK:
> > + if (!(fl->fl_file->f_mode & FMODE_READ))
> > + return -EBADF;
> > + case F_WRLCK:
> > + if (!(fl->fl_file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
> > + return -EBADF;
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Why are we now checking FMODE_WRITE for the RDLCK case ?
> Or was losing the break; unintentional ?
>
> Dave
>
Well spotted -- that was indeed unintentional. Fixed in my repo and in
the code in -next, but I'll refrain from re-posting for now.
Clearly, I need to roll some better file locking tests... ;)
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
