Currently the non-nd_set_link based versions of ->follow_link are expected
to do a path_put(&nd->path) on failure. This calling convention is unexpected,
undocumented and doesn't match what the nd_set_link-based instances do.
Move the path_put out of the only non-nd_set_link based ->follow_link
instance into the caller.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
*p = dentry->d_inode->i_op->follow_link(dentry, nd);
error = PTR_ERR(*p);
if (IS_ERR(*p))
- goto out_put_link;
+ goto out_put_nd_path;
error = 0;
s = nd_get_link(nd);
out_put_nd_path:
path_put(&nd->path);
-out_put_link:
path_put(link);
return error;
}
static void *proc_pid_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
{
struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
+ struct path path;
int error = -EACCES;
- /* We don't need a base pointer in the /proc filesystem */
- path_put(&nd->path);
-
/* Are we allowed to snoop on the tasks file descriptors? */
if (!proc_fd_access_allowed(inode))
goto out;
- error = PROC_I(inode)->op.proc_get_link(dentry, &nd->path);
+ error = PROC_I(inode)->op.proc_get_link(dentry, &path);
+ if (error)
+ goto out;
+
+ path_put(&nd->path);
+ nd->path = path;
+ return NULL;
out:
return ERR_PTR(error);
}