From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: only validate the lock vs. f_mode in F_SETLK
 codepaths
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 14:07:44 -0400
Message-ID: <20140509180744.GA9930@redhat.com>
References: <1399652489-5217-1-git-send-email-jlayton@poochiereds.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Reuben Farrelly <reuben@reub.net>,
	bfields@fieldses.org, swhiteho@redhat.com, ssorce@redhat.com
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:18855 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756801AbaEISH7 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 9 May 2014 14:07:59 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1399652489-5217-1-git-send-email-jlayton@poochiereds.net>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:21:29PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:

 > -	/* Ensure that fl->fl_filp has compatible f_mode */
 > -	switch (l->l_type) {
 > -	case F_RDLCK:
 > -		if (!(filp->f_mode & FMODE_READ))
 > -			return -EBADF;
 > -		break;
 > -	case F_WRLCK:
 > -		if (!(filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
 > -			return -EBADF;
 > -		break;
 > -	}


 > +check_fmode_for_setlk(struct file_lock *fl)
 > +{
 > +	switch (fl->fl_type) {
 > +	case F_RDLCK:
 > +		if (!(fl->fl_file->f_mode & FMODE_READ))
 > +			return -EBADF;
 > +	case F_WRLCK:
 > +		if (!(fl->fl_file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
 > +			return -EBADF;
 > +	}
 > +	return 0;
 > +}

Why are we now checking FMODE_WRITE for the RDLCK case ?
Or was losing the break; unintentional ?

	Dave