From 729b8a3dee2bc873e4647e9384de9111548e599e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Howells 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 Signed-off-by: Al Viro --- 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 35b394a75d76..71e0e3a15b9d 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; -- 2.34.1