Re: [PATCH v2] fs: always return zero on success from replace_fd()

[Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 04:52:29PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 02:33:13PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> 
> > +       guard(spinlock)(&files->file_lock);
> >         err = expand_files(files, fd);
> >         if (unlikely(err < 0))
> > -               goto out_unlock;
> > -       return do_dup2(files, file, fd, flags);
> > +               return err;
> > +       err = do_dup2(files, file, fd, flags);
> > +       if (err < 0)
> > +               return err;
> > 
> > -out_unlock:
> > -       spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> > -       return err;
> > +       return 0;
> >  }
> 
> NAK.  This is broken - do_dup2() drops ->file_lock.  And that's why I

Right, I missed that. Just say it's broken. You don't need to throw
around NAKs pointlessly. It's pretty clear when to drop ptaches without
throwing the meat cleaver through the room.

> loathe the guard() - it's too easy to get confused *and* assume that

The calling conventions of do_dup2() are terrible. The only reason it
drops file_lock itself instead of leaving it to the two callers that
have to acquire it anyway is because it wants to call filp_close() if
there's already a file on that fd.

And really the side-effect of dropping a lock implicitly is nasty
especially when the function doesn't even indicate that it does that in
it's name.

And guards are great.