Commit 950ec528 authored by Jeff Layton's avatar Jeff Layton Committed by Steve French

cifs: properly handle case where CIFSGetSrvInodeNumber fails

...if it does then we pass a pointer to an unintialized variable for
the inode number to cifs_new_inode. Have it pass a NULL pointer instead.

Also tweak the function prototypes to reduce the amount of casting.
Signed-off-by: default avatarJeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSteve French <sfrench@us.ibm.com>
parent 132ac7b7
......@@ -92,8 +92,7 @@ extern u64 cifs_UnixTimeToNT(struct timespec);
extern __le64 cnvrtDosCifsTm(__u16 date, __u16 time);
extern struct timespec cnvrtDosUnixTm(__u16 date, __u16 time);
extern struct inode *cifs_new_inode(struct super_block *sb,
unsigned long *inum);
extern struct inode *cifs_new_inode(struct super_block *sb, __u64 *inum);
extern int cifs_get_inode_info(struct inode **pinode,
const unsigned char *search_path,
FILE_ALL_INFO *pfile_info,
......
......@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ static void fill_fake_finddataunix(FILE_UNIX_BASIC_INFO *pfnd_dat,
* guaranteed to be unique.
*/
struct inode *
cifs_new_inode(struct super_block *sb, unsigned long *inum)
cifs_new_inode(struct super_block *sb, __u64 *inum)
{
struct inode *inode;
......@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ cifs_new_inode(struct super_block *sb, unsigned long *inum)
* if serverino is disabled, perhaps we should be using iunique()?
*/
if (inum && (CIFS_SB(sb)->mnt_cifs_flags & CIFS_MOUNT_SERVER_INUM))
inode->i_ino = *inum;
inode->i_ino = (unsigned long) *inum;
/*
* must set this here instead of cifs_alloc_inode since VFS will
......@@ -276,8 +276,7 @@ int cifs_get_inode_info_unix(struct inode **pinode,
/* get new inode */
if (*pinode == NULL) {
*pinode = cifs_new_inode(sb, (unsigned long *)
&find_data.UniqueId);
*pinode = cifs_new_inode(sb, &find_data.UniqueId);
if (*pinode == NULL) {
rc = -ENOMEM;
goto cgiiu_exit;
......@@ -499,6 +498,7 @@ int cifs_get_inode_info(struct inode **pinode,
/* get new inode */
if (*pinode == NULL) {
__u64 inode_num;
__u64 *pinum = &inode_num;
/* Is an i_ino of zero legal? Can we use that to check
if the server supports returning inode numbers? Are
......@@ -518,20 +518,20 @@ int cifs_get_inode_info(struct inode **pinode,
int rc1 = 0;
rc1 = CIFSGetSrvInodeNumber(xid, pTcon,
full_path, &inode_num,
full_path, pinum,
cifs_sb->local_nls,
cifs_sb->mnt_cifs_flags &
CIFS_MOUNT_MAP_SPECIAL_CHR);
if (rc1) {
cFYI(1, ("GetSrvInodeNum rc %d", rc1));
pinum = NULL;
/* BB EOPNOSUPP disable SERVER_INUM? */
}
*pinode = cifs_new_inode(sb, (unsigned long *)
&inode_num);
} else {
*pinode = cifs_new_inode(sb, NULL);
pinum = NULL;
}
*pinode = cifs_new_inode(sb, pinum);
if (*pinode == NULL) {
rc = -ENOMEM;
goto cgii_exit;
......@@ -1148,8 +1148,8 @@ int cifs_mkdir(struct inode *inode, struct dentry *direntry, int mode)
else
direntry->d_op = &cifs_dentry_ops;
newinode = cifs_new_inode(inode->i_sb, (unsigned long *)
&pInfo->UniqueId);
newinode = cifs_new_inode(inode->i_sb,
&pInfo->UniqueId);
if (newinode == NULL) {
kfree(pInfo);
goto mkdir_get_info;
......
......@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ static inline void dump_cifs_file_struct(struct file *file, char *label)
static int
construct_dentry(struct qstr *qstring, struct file *file,
struct inode **ptmp_inode, struct dentry **pnew_dentry,
unsigned long *inum)
__u64 *inum)
{
struct dentry *tmp_dentry = NULL;
struct super_block *sb = file->f_path.dentry->d_sb;
......@@ -820,7 +820,7 @@ static int find_cifs_entry(const int xid, struct cifsTconInfo *pTcon,
/* inode num, inode type and filename returned */
static int cifs_get_name_from_search_buf(struct qstr *pqst,
char *current_entry, __u16 level, unsigned int unicode,
struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb, int max_len, ino_t *pinum)
struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb, int max_len, __u64 *pinum)
{
int rc = 0;
unsigned int len = 0;
......@@ -903,7 +903,7 @@ static int cifs_filldir(char *pfindEntry, struct file *file,
struct qstr qstring;
struct cifsFileInfo *pCifsF;
unsigned int obj_type;
ino_t inum;
__u64 inum;
struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb;
struct inode *tmp_inode;
struct dentry *tmp_dentry;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment