On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:16:39AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 24-06-25 10:29:08, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > Switch to a more common coding style.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/fhandle.c | 16 ++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/fhandle.c b/fs/fhandle.c
> > index d8d32208c621..22edced83e4c 100644
> > --- a/fs/fhandle.c
> > +++ b/fs/fhandle.c
> > @@ -170,18 +170,22 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(name_to_handle_at, int, dfd, const char __user *, name,
> >
> > static int get_path_anchor(int fd, struct path *root)
> > {
> > + if (fd >= 0) {
> > + CLASS(fd, f)(fd);
> > + if (fd_empty(f))
> > + return -EBADF;
> > + *root = fd_file(f)->f_path;
> > + path_get(root);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > if (fd == AT_FDCWD) {
> > struct fs_struct *fs = current->fs;
> > spin_lock(&fs->lock);
> > *root = fs->pwd;
> > path_get(root);
> > spin_unlock(&fs->lock);
> > - } else {
> > - CLASS(fd, f)(fd);
> > - if (fd_empty(f))
> > - return -EBADF;
> > - *root = fd_file(f)->f_path;
> > - path_get(root);
> > + return 0;
> > }
>
> This actually introduces a regression that when userspace passes invalid fd
> < 0, we'd be returning 0 whereas previously we were returning -EBADF. I
> think the return below should be switched to -EBADF to fix that.
Whoops. Thanks!
