Re: [04/18] fuse: reject O_DIRECT flag also in fuse_create

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 05:36:42PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
>> 2.6.27-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
>>
>> ------------------
>> From: Csaba Henk <csaba@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> commit 1b7323965a8c6eee9dc4e345a7ae4bff1dc93149 upstream.
>>
>> The comment in fuse_open about O_DIRECT:
>>
>>   "VFS checks this, but only _after_ ->open()"
>>
>> also holds for fuse_create, however, the same kind of check was missing there.
>>
>> As an impact of this bug, open(newfile, O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_DIRECT) fails, but a
>> stub newfile will remain if the fuse server handled the implied FUSE_CREATE
>> request appropriately.
>>
>> Other impact: in the above situation ima_file_free() will complain to open/free
>> imbalance if CONFIG_IMA is set.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Csaba Henk <csaba@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Harshavardhana <harsha@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> ---
>>  fs/fuse/dir.c |    3 +++
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> --- a/fs/fuse/dir.c
>> +++ b/fs/fuse/dir.c
>> @@ -401,6 +401,9 @@ static int fuse_create_open(struct inode
>>  	if (flags & O_DIRECT)
>>  		return -EINVAL;
>>  +	if (flags & O_DIRECT)
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>
> I must be missing something.  The added part seems to be identical to the 
> lines just above.
>
> Forgive me if I am totally misreading the diff.

Oops, you are right, this was already included in the last .27 release,
my mistake.  I've now deleted it from the .27 queue.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/