On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 02:44:43PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Al Viro
> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:41:01 +
>
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:35:24AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Al Viro
> >> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 00:20:27 +
> >>
> >> > 1) massage sys_socketpair() (should
From: Al Viro
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:41:01 +
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:35:24AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Al Viro
>> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 00:20:27 +
>>
>> >1) massage sys_socketpair() (should be a pure cleanup)
>> >2) fix and clean up kcm_clone() (-stable fodder)
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:35:24AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Al Viro
> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 00:20:27 +
>
> > 1) massage sys_socketpair() (should be a pure cleanup)
> > 2) fix and clean up kcm_clone() (-stable fodder)
> > 3) switch sock_alloc_file() to new calling convent
From: Al Viro
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 00:20:27 +
> 1) massage sys_socketpair() (should be a pure cleanup)
> 2) fix and clean up kcm_clone() (-stable fodder)
> 3) switch sock_alloc_file() to new calling conventions.
>
> It got some local testing, but it certainly needs m
Almost all sock_alloc_file() callers want sock_release()
in case of failure. Currently it consumes socket on success
(it will be destroyed on final fput() of resulting file) and
leaves it alone on failure. Making it consume socket in all
cases makes for simpler life in callers.
T
