On Tue, 2023-06-20 at 16:00 +0500, stsp wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 20.06.2023 15:46, Jeff Layton пишет:
> > On Tue, 2023-06-20 at 14:55 +0500, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> > > Currently F_UNLCK with F_OFD_GETLK returns -EINVAL.
> > > The proposed extension allows to use it for getting the lock
> > > information from the particular fd.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stas Sergeev <stsp2@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > CC: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > CC: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > ---
> > > fs/locks.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> > > index df8b26a42524..210766007e63 100644
> > > --- a/fs/locks.c
> > > +++ b/fs/locks.c
> > > @@ -868,6 +868,21 @@ static bool posix_locks_conflict(struct file_lock *caller_fl,
> > > return locks_conflict(caller_fl, sys_fl);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/* Determine if lock sys_fl blocks lock caller_fl. Used on xx_GETLK
> > > + * path so checks for additional GETLK-specific things like F_UNLCK.
> > > + */
> > > +static bool posix_test_locks_conflict(struct file_lock *caller_fl,
> > > + struct file_lock *sys_fl)
> > > +{
> > > + /* F_UNLCK checks any locks on the same fd. */
> > > + if (caller_fl->fl_type == F_UNLCK) {
> > > + if (!posix_same_owner(caller_fl, sys_fl))
> > > + return false;
> > > + return locks_overlap(caller_fl, sys_fl);
> > > + }
> > > + return posix_locks_conflict(caller_fl, sys_fl);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /* Determine if lock sys_fl blocks lock caller_fl. FLOCK specific
> > > * checking before calling the locks_conflict().
> > > */
> > > @@ -901,7 +916,7 @@ posix_test_lock(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *fl)
> > > retry:
> > > spin_lock(&ctx->flc_lock);
> > > list_for_each_entry(cfl, &ctx->flc_posix, fl_list) {
> > > - if (!posix_locks_conflict(fl, cfl))
> > > + if (!posix_test_locks_conflict(fl, cfl))
> > > continue;
> > > if (cfl->fl_lmops && cfl->fl_lmops->lm_lock_expirable
> > > && (*cfl->fl_lmops->lm_lock_expirable)(cfl)) {
> > > @@ -2207,7 +2222,8 @@ int fcntl_getlk(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, struct flock *flock)
> > > if (fl == NULL)
> > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > error = -EINVAL;
> > > - if (flock->l_type != F_RDLCK && flock->l_type != F_WRLCK)
> > > + if (cmd != F_OFD_GETLK && flock->l_type != F_RDLCK
> > > + && flock->l_type != F_WRLCK)
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > error = flock_to_posix_lock(filp, fl, flock);
> > > @@ -2414,7 +2430,8 @@ int fcntl_getlk64(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, struct flock64 *flock)
> > > return -ENOMEM;
> > >
> > > error = -EINVAL;
> > > - if (flock->l_type != F_RDLCK && flock->l_type != F_WRLCK)
> > > + if (cmd != F_OFD_GETLK && flock->l_type != F_RDLCK
> > > + && flock->l_type != F_WRLCK)
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > error = flock64_to_posix_lock(filp, fl, flock);
> > This seems like a reasonable sort of interface to add, particularly for
> > the CRIU case.
>
> Just for the record: my own cases are
> the remaining 2. CRIU case is not mine
> and I haven't talked to CRIU people
> about that.
>
>
> > Using F_UNLCK for this is a bit kludgey, but adding a new
> > constant is probably worse.
> >
> > I'm willing to take this in with an eye toward v6.6. Are you also
> > willing to draft up some manpage patches that detail this new interface?
> Sure thing.
> As soon as its applied, I'll prepare a man
> patch, or should it be done before that point?
These days, it's a good idea to go ahead and draft that up early. You'll
be surprised what sort of details you notice once you have to start
writing documentation. ;)
You can post it as part of this set on the next posting and just mention
that it's a draft manpage patch. You should also include the linux-api
mailing list on the next posting so we get some feedback on the
interface itself.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
