From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Kent Subject: Re: [PATCH] autofs4 - detect invalid direct mount requests Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:50:21 +0800 Message-ID: <1215006622.3046.75.camel@raven.themaw.net> References: <20080620051301.9988.94307.stgit@raven.themaw.net> <20080701141715.62a2132b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1214989192.3046.34.camel@raven.themaw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, autofs@linux.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Moyer Return-path: Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:59217 "EHLO out2.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753694AbYGBNxW (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:53:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 09:42 -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Ian Kent writes: > > > On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 14:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:13:03 +0800 > >> Ian Kent wrote: > >> > >> > autofs v5 dierct and offset mounts within an autofs filesystem are > >> > triggered by existing autofs triger mounts so the mount point dentry > >> > must be positive. If the mount point dentry is negative then the > >> > trigger doesn't exist so we can return fail immediately. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Ian Kent > >> > > >> > --- > >> > > >> > fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 4 ++++ > >> > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > > >> > diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c > >> > index cd21fd4..ae637d9 100644 > >> > --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c > >> > +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c > >> > @@ -307,6 +307,10 @@ int autofs4_wait(struct autofs_sb_info *sbi, struct dentry *dentry, > >> > if (sbi->catatonic) > >> > return -ENOENT; > >> > > >> > + if (!dentry->d_inode && > >> > + (sbi->type & (AUTOFS_TYPE_DIRECT | AUTOFS_TYPE_OFFSET))) > >> > + return -ENOENT; > >> > + > >> > name = kmalloc(NAME_MAX + 1, GFP_KERNEL); > >> > if (!name) > >> > return -ENOMEM; > >> > >> A good changelog would allow little old me to determine whether this > >> patch should be merged into 2.6.25 and/or 2.6.26 and/or 2.6.27. This > >> wasn't a good changelog :( > > > > Sorry, I guess I shouldn't have included it along with the other more > > serious bug fixes. It gets rid of an annoyance more than anything as the > > daemon still has to check for it. > > > > It isn't important or urgent, just useful. > > And I'd still like to see a comment in there! ;) OK. Andrew, could you drop that patch and I'll re-submit it with a better change log entry. Ian