On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 02:15:15PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > Hmm, could you please test with 09954bad448 reverted? (although I don't > really have a good explanation currently how it'd be causing what you are > observing).
I do, actually - ->f_mode on open(..., 3) contains neither FMODE_READ nor
FMODE_WRITE. So this
While at it, clean up a bit handling of !(mode & (FMODE_READ|FMODE_WRITE))
case and return EINVAL instead of succeeding as well.
is working as promised in commit message.
