On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 08:00:13PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: > 2013/2/7 J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 06:32:38PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: > >> 2013/2/7 J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:53:46PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: > >> >> Nothing prevents it. If somebody grabbed a share mode lock on a file > >> >> before we call deny_lock_file, we simply close this file and return > >> >> -ETXTBSY. > >> > > >> > But leave the newly-created file there--ugh. > >> > > >> >> We can't grab it before atomic_open because we don't have an > >> >> inode there. > >> > > >> > If you can get the lock while still holding the directory i_mutex can't > >> > you prevent anyone else from looking up the new file until you've gotten > >> > the lock? > >> > > >> > >> Hm..., seems you are right, I missed this part: > >> mutex_lock > >> lookup_open -> atomic_open -> deny_lock_file > >> mutex_unlock > >> > >> that means that nobody can open and of course set flock on the newly > >> created file (because flock is done through file descriptor). So, it > >> should be fine to call flock after f_ops->atomic_open in atomic_open > >> function. Thanks. > > > > Whether that works may also depend on how the new dentry is set up? If > > it's hashed before you call flock then I suppose it's already visible to > > others. > > It seems it should be hashed in f_ops->atomic_open() (at least cifs > and nfs do it this way). In do_last when we do an ordinary open, we > don't hit parent i_mutex if lookup is succeeded through lookup_fast. > lookup_fast can catch newly created dentry and set it's share mode > before atomic_open codepath hits deny_lock_file. > > Also, I noted that: atomic open does f_ops->atomic_open and then it > processes may_open check; if may_open fails, the file is closed and > open returns with a error code (but file is created anyway). That would be a bug, I think. E.g. "man 3posix open": No files shall be created or modified if the function returns -1. Looking at the code... See the references to FILE_CREATED in atomic_open--looks like that's trying to prevent may_open from failing in this case. > I think > there is no difference between this case and the situation with > deny_lock_file there. Looks to me like it would be a bug in either case. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
