On 15.07.2024 16:47, Nikita Kiryushin wrote: > As nonseekable_open() documentation states: > "The function is not supposed to ever fail, the only > reason it returns an 'int' and not 'void' is so that it can be plugged > directly into file_operations structure." > > So it seems, that it will not fail anytime as it is not meant to? > Otherwise, > there will be a huge problem with leaks in many other parts of code, as > there are plenty of places, where nonseekable_open() is not checked after > resource allocations.
Yes, but there is another possible modification: replacement of call to nonseekable_open() by a call to some other function that returns error. Current code is already ready for such modification. -- Alexey
