fs_dup2 bug fix, memleak

[anjiahao1]

Summary

file_ioctl failed, but close success, inode need release

Impact

NULL

Testing

qemu

[lupyuen]

[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

This pull request needs significant improvements to meet the NuttX requirements. Here's a breakdown of what's missing and how to improve it:

Summary:

• Insufficient Detail: The summary is too brief. Expand on these points:

  • Why is the change necessary? Clearly state the problem "file_ioctl failed, but close success" doesn't explain the root cause or why this is an issue.
  • What functional part of the code is being changed? Be specific about the files, functions, or modules you are modifying.
  • How does the change exactly work? Provide a technical explanation of your solution. What steps did you take to ensure the inode is released correctly?

• Links:

  • Issue References: If this PR fixes a reported issue on either the NuttX or NuttX-apps repositories, provide links to those issues. This adds important context for reviewers.

Impact:

• Too Vague: "NULL" is not a suitable response for the impact section. Carefully consider each point:
  • New Feature / Changed Feature: If applicable, describe the new functionality or modifications to existing features.
  • User Impact: Will users need to change their code or workflow? If so, explain how.
  • Build Impact: Will the build process be affected (new dependencies, configuration options, etc.)?
  • Hardware Impact: Are specific architectures, boards, or drivers affected?
  • Documentation: Does this change require documentation updates? If so, have you included them in the PR?
  • Security: Does this change have any security implications (positive or negative)?
  • Compatibility: Will this affect compatibility with older versions of NuttX, other software, or hardware?
• Consider all aspects: Even if an impact area doesn't apply, state "NO" explicitly to confirm you've considered it.

Testing:

• Incomplete Information:
  • Build Host(s): Provide details about your development environment: operating system, CPU architecture, compiler (including version).
  • Target(s): Specify the target architecture(s) and board configurations you tested on. For example:
    • "qemu-arm:sim:nsh"
    • "stm32f4discovery:nsh"
• Missing Logs: Provide relevant snippets from your testing logs:
  • Before: Demonstrate the problem you're trying to solve.
  • After: Show how your changes resolve the issue. Highlight the key differences.

Example of an Improved Summary:

## Summary

This PR addresses an issue where a failed `file_ioctl` operation could lead to an inode leak. Currently, if `file_ioctl` fails under specific conditions, the file close operation succeeds but the inode is not released properly. This can exhaust system resources over time.

The change modifies the `fs/ioctl.c` file to ensure that the inode is released consistently, even if `file_ioctl` encounters an error. Specifically, the logic in the `ioctl` function is updated to release the inode before returning an error code in cases where it was previously being missed.

This PR fixes [link to NuttX issue if applicable].

## Impact

* **Is new feature added? Is existing feature changed?** NO (This is a bug fix)
* **Impact on user (will user need to adapt to change)?**  NO
* **Impact on build (will build process change)?** NO 
* **Impact on hardware (will arch(s) / board(s) / driver(s) change)?** NO
* **Impact on documentation (is update required / provided)?** NO
* **Impact on security (any sort of implications)?**  NO (This fix improves resource management but does not introduce new security vulnerabilities)
* **Impact on compatibility (backward/forward/interoperability)?** NO 
* **Anything else to consider?** N/A 

## Testing

**Build Host:**
* OS: Ubuntu 20.04
* CPU: x86_64 
* Compiler: GCC 9.4.0

**Target:**
* qemu-arm:sim:nsh

**Testing logs before change:**

[output demonstrating the inode leak issue]

**Testing logs after change:**

[output showing the inode is now released correctly]

By providing more detail and following the NuttX requirements, you'll make it much easier for reviewers to understand and approve your pull request.

[xiaoxiang781216]

do we need so heavy process to handle a minor change?

[cederom]

Thank you :-)

[cederom]

do we need so heavy process to handle a minor change?

Not really in this case, we are just testing review process improvements, @lupyuen created AI bot that will provide automated review with hints, this may help both reporters and reviewers, I think this is really great idea, especially in case of more complex PRs.. to be honest I am surprised to see this already working pretty well :-)