On Tue, 2022-11-15 at 01:01 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 08:11:53AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > ksmbd seems to be trying to use a cmd value of 0 when unlocking a file. > > That activity requires a type of F_UNLCK with a cmd of F_SETLK. For > > local POSIX locking, it doesn't matter much since vfs_lock_file ignores > > @cmd, but filesystems that define their own ->lock operation expect to > > see it set sanely. > > Btw, I really wonder if we should split vfs_lock_file into separate > calls for locking vs unlocking. The current interface seems very > confusing. Maybe, though the current scheme basically of mirrors the userland API, as do the ->lock and ->flock file_operations. FWIW, the filelocking API is pretty rife with warts. Several other things that I wouldn't mind doing, just off the top of my head: - move the file locking API into a separate header. No need for it to be in fs.h, which is already too bloated. - define a new struct for leases, and drop lease-specific fields from file_lock - remove more separate filp and inode arguments - maybe rename locks.c to filelock.c? "locks.c" is too ambiguous Any others? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
