On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:35:51 +0400
Dmitry Antipov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch proposes an additional error checking performed within setfl().
>
> As a result, fcntl (fd, F_SETFL, O_ASYNC) will return -1 and set errno
> to -EINVAL if filp->f_op->fasync is NULL for file specified by fd. This
> is possible, for example, if fd is a descriptor returned by inotify_init().
>
>
> Dmitry
>
>
>
> [2.6.23-fcntl-fasync-check.patch text/x-patch (353B)]
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Antipov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --- .orig-2.6.23/fs/fcntl.c 2007-10-17 15:26:06.000000000 +0400
> +++ 2.6.23/fs/fcntl.c 2007-10-17 15:25:27.000000000 +0400
> @@ -240,6 +240,9 @@
> error = filp->f_op->fasync(fd, filp, (arg & FASYNC) !=
> 0);
> if (error < 0)
> goto out;
> + } else {
> + error = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> }
> }
This would have made sense whent he code was originally written
but it now has a (small) potential to break existing applications.
I guess if the _only_ fd's which don't implement fasync are inotify,
signalfd and other such new-and-obscure things then the risk is
probably acceptably low.
But is the proposed change actually very useful?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
