On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 09:38:38AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> replace_fd() returns either a negative error number or the number of the
> new file descriptor. The current code misinterprets any positive file
> descriptor number as an error.
>
> Only check for negative error numbers, so that __receive_sock() is called
> correctly for valid file descriptors.
>
> Fixes: 173817151b15 ("fs: Expand __receive_fd() to accept existing fd")
> Fixes: 42eb0d54c08a ("fs: split receive_fd_replace from __receive_fd")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Untested, it stuck out while reading the code.
> ---
> fs/file.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/file.c b/fs/file.c
> index 6d2275c3be9c6967d16c75d1b6521f9b58980926..56c3a045121d8f43a54cf05e6ce1962f896339ac 100644
> --- a/fs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/file.c
> @@ -1387,7 +1387,7 @@ int receive_fd_replace(int new_fd, struct file *file, unsigned int o_flags)
> if (error)
> return error;
> error = replace_fd(new_fd, file, o_flags);
> - if (error)
> + if (error < 0)
> return error;
What in the holy fsck? Why did the seccomp selftests not fail
horrendously explode because of that.
