From 729b8a3dee2bc873e4647e9384de9111548e599e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:02:31 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Apparmor: Use d_is_positive/negative() rather than testing
dentry->d_inode
Use d_is_positive(dentry) or d_is_negative(dentry) rather than testing
dentry->d_inode as the dentry may cover another layer that has an inode when
the top layer doesn't or may hold a 0,0 chardev that's actually a whiteout.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
---
security/apparmor/path.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/security/apparmor/path.c b/security/apparmor/path.c
index 35b394a75d762d..71e0e3a15b9dc3 100644
--- a/security/apparmor/path.c
+++ b/security/apparmor/path.c
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ static int d_namespace_path(struct path *path, char *buf, int buflen,
* security_path hooks as a deleted dentry except without an inode
* allocated.
*/
- if (d_unlinked(path->dentry) && path->dentry->d_inode &&
+ if (d_unlinked(path->dentry) && d_is_positive(path->dentry) &&
!(flags & PATH_MEDIATE_DELETED)) {
error = -ENOENT;
goto out;
--
GitLab