From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756623Ab2HOVbJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:31:09 -0400
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:41924 "EHLO
	mail-lpp01m010-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756405Ab2HOVbH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:31:07 -0400
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 01:31:03 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>,
        James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>,
        Matthew Helsley <matt.helsley@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/8] procfs: Add ability to plug in auxiliary fdinfo
 providers
Message-ID: <20120815213103.GP23657@moon>
References: <20120815092116.700948346@openvz.org>
 <20120815092409.507162379@openvz.org>
 <20120815211628.GN23464@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120815211628.GN23464@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:16:28PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:21:19PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > -static int fdinfo_open_helper(struct inode *inode, int *f_flags, struct path *path)
> > +static int fdinfo_open_helper(struct inode *inode, int *f_flags, struct file **f_file, struct path *path)
> 
> Bloody bad taste, that...  This kind of optional arguments is almost always
> a bad sign - tends to happen when you have two barely related functions
> crammed into one.  And yes, proc_fd_info() suffers the same braindamage.
> Trying to avoid code duplication is generally a good thing, but it's not
> always worth doing - less obfuscated code wins.

Sure I'll update. Thanks.

> >  static int seq_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >  {
> >  	struct proc_fdinfo *fdinfo = m->private;
> > -	seq_printf(m, "pos:\t%lli\nflags:\t0%o\n",
> > -		   (long long)fdinfo->f_pos,
> > -		   fdinfo->f_flags);
> > -	return 0;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = seq_printf(m, "pos:\t%lli\nflags:\t0%o\n",
> > +			 (long long)fdinfo->f_file->f_pos,
> > +			 fdinfo->f_flags);
> 
> Realistically, that one is not going to overflow; you are almost certainly
> wasting more cycles on that check of !ret just below than you'll save on
> not going into ->show_fdinfo() in case of full buffer.

Yes, this is redundant, thanks. Will fix.

> 
> > +	if (!ret && fdinfo->f_file->f_op->show_fdinfo)
> > +		ret = fdinfo->f_file->f_op->show_fdinfo(m, fdinfo->f_file);
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> >  }
>   
> > +	ret = single_open(file, seq_show, fdinfo);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		put_filp(fdinfo->f_file);
> 
> Excuse me?  We should *never* do put_filp() on anything that has already
> been opened.  Think what happens if you race with close(); close() would
> rip the reference from descriptor table and do fput(), leaving you with
> the last reference to that struct file.  You really don't want to just
> go and free it.  IOW, that one should be fput().
> 
> > +	put_filp(fdinfo->f_file);
> Ditto. 

It seems I indeed missed this scenario, thanks Al, will update!

	Cyrill