On 01/11/2011 07:17 PM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > Oren Laadan [orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > | > | The following two patches add c/r support for POSIX file locks. They > | are based on the series posted by Suka some time ago: > | https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers/2010-October/025855.html > | > | Suka: > | > | When I read your post I thought that boht posix and flock were > | supported, but looking at the code I saw only posix. Am I missing > | anything ? > > Hmm. I have been working with only the posix locks for starters since > it checkpoints/restarts the more general, 'struct file_lock' object. > > But I should make that explicit. If a patch description implies that > it covers flocks can be checkpointed, please let me know and I will > fix it. > Ok, just checking - I already modified the patch description and the inline comments. > C/R of leases/file-owner info is blocked on C/R of 'struct pids'. It's in the working ... > > | > | Also, I'm not sure that all the input is well sanitized during > | restart - for example, the possible values for the lock flags. > | Any thoughts ? > > I have this check in restore_file_locks(): > > + ret = -EBADF; > + if (h->fl_flags & FL_POSIX) > + ret = restore_one_posix_lock(ctx, file, fd, In this specific example, I fixed it to ensure that only one of FL_POSIX, FL_FLOCK and FL_LEASE is is present. (Actually, now I see that I used fl_type, and I should fix it to be fl_flags, but the intent was good ...) > > The other fields (lock type for instance) will be validated by flock64_set() > as for a new fcntl() call - no ? That's what I was asking :o > > | > | Lastly, do you have test cases to run against this patch and test > | it ? > > Yes, I added some tests to cr-tests a while ago and then updated them. > Will find the updates and post them. Thanks, Oren. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
