Currently the non-nd_set_link based versions of ->follow_link are expected
to do a path_put(&nd->path) on failure.  This calling convention is unexpected,
undocumented and doesn't match what the nd_set_link-based instances do.
Move the path_put out of the only non-nd_set_link based ->follow_link
instance into the caller.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
        *p = dentry->d_inode->i_op->follow_link(dentry, nd);
        error = PTR_ERR(*p);
        if (IS_ERR(*p))
-               goto out_put_link;
+               goto out_put_nd_path;
 
        error = 0;
        s = nd_get_link(nd);
 
 out_put_nd_path:
        path_put(&nd->path);
-out_put_link:
        path_put(link);
        return error;
 }
 
 static void *proc_pid_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
 {
        struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
+       struct path path;
        int error = -EACCES;
 
-       /* We don't need a base pointer in the /proc filesystem */
-       path_put(&nd->path);
-
        /* Are we allowed to snoop on the tasks file descriptors? */
        if (!proc_fd_access_allowed(inode))
                goto out;
 
-       error = PROC_I(inode)->op.proc_get_link(dentry, &nd->path);
+       error = PROC_I(inode)->op.proc_get_link(dentry, &path);
+       if (error)
+               goto out;
+
+       path_put(&nd->path);
+       nd->path = path;
+       return NULL;
 out:
        return ERR_PTR(error);
 }