* Vivek Goyal (vgo...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Currently lo_flush() is written in such a way that it expects to receive
> a FLUSH requests on a regular file (and not directories). For example,
> we call lo_fi_fd() which searches lo->fd_map. If we open directories
> using opendir(), we keep don't keep track of these in lo->fd_map instead
> we keep them in lo->dir_map. So we expect lo_flush() to be called on
> regular files only.
>
> Even linux fuse client calls FLUSH only for regular files and not
> directories. So put a check for filetype and return EBADF if
> lo_flush() is called on a non-regular file.
>
> Reported-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com>
> ---
> tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> index 8ba79f503a..48a109d3f6 100644
> --- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> @@ -1968,7 +1968,7 @@ static void lo_flush(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
> struct fuse_file_info *fi)
> struct lo_data *lo = lo_data(req);
>
> inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
> - if (!inode) {
> + if (!inode || !S_ISREG(inode->filetype)) {
> fuse_reply_err(req, EBADF);
Does that need a lo_inode_put(lo, &inode) in the new case?
Dave
> return;
> }
> --
> 2.25.4
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
