On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:45:04AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Due to some unfortunate history, POSIX locks have very strange and
> unhelpful semantics. The thing that usually catches people by surprise
> is that they are dropped whenever the process closes any file descriptor
> associated with the inode.
>
> This is extremely problematic for people developing file servers that
> need to implement byte-range locks. Developers often need a "lock
> management" facility to ensure that file descriptors are not closed
> until all of the locks associated with the inode are finished.
>
> This patchset adds a new type of lock that attempts to address this
> issue. These locks work just like "normal" POSIX read/write locks, but
> have semantics that are more like BSD locks with respect to inheritance
> and behavior on close.
>
> This is implemented primarily by changing how fl_owner field is set for
> these locks. Instead of having them owned by the files_struct of the
> process, they are instead owned by the filp on which they were acquired.
> Thus, they are inherited across fork() and are only released when the
> last reference to a filp is put.
>
> These new semantics prevent them from being merged with "classic" POSIX
> locks, even if they are acquired by the same process. These locks will
> also conflict with "classic" POSIX locks even if they are acquired by
> the same process or on the same file descriptor.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/locks.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index 86cafc3..3b278a6 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -348,6 +348,26 @@ static int posix_assign_type(struct file_lock *fl, long type)
> {
> int err;
>
> + /*
> + * FL_FILP_PRIVATE locks are "owned" by the filp upon which they were
> + * acquired, regardless of what task is dealing with them. Set the
> + * fl_owner appropriately.
> + */
> + switch (type) {
> + case F_RDLCKP:
> + type = F_RDLCK;
> + fl->fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)fl->fl_file;
> + break;
> + case F_WRLCKP:
> + type = F_WRLCK;
> + fl->fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)fl->fl_file;
> + break;
> + case F_UNLCKP:
> + type = F_UNLCK;
> + fl->fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)fl->fl_file;
> + break;
> + }
> +
After this fl_owner gets set to current->files in
flock{64}_to_posix_lock and then reset here. That seems like a trap for
the unwary reader.
Could you do something like rename this flock_to_posix_lock_common and
move all the 32/64-bit-independent initialization here?
Looks like there's way more duplication than necessary between those two
cases.
(Also, why do we have an fl_owner_t instead of using a void?)
--b.
> err = assign_type(fl, type);
> if (err)
> return err;
> @@ -2225,7 +2245,7 @@ void locks_remove_filp(struct file *filp)
>
> while ((fl = *before) != NULL) {
> if (fl->fl_file == filp) {
> - if (IS_FLOCK(fl)) {
> + if (IS_FLOCK(fl) || IS_POSIX(fl)) {
> locks_delete_lock(before);
> continue;
> }
> diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> index 95e46c8..6b7b68a 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> @@ -151,6 +151,21 @@ struct f_owner_ex {
> #define F_UNLCK 2
> #endif
>
> +/*
> + * fd "private" POSIX locks.
> + *
> + * Usually POSIX locks held by a process are released on *any* close and are
> + * not inherited across a fork().
> + *
> + * These lock types will conflict with normal POSIX locks, but are "owned"
> + * by the fd, not the process. This means that they are inherited across
> + * fork() like BSD (flock) locks, and they are only closed when the last
> + * reference to the the filp against which were acquired is closed.
> + */
> +#define F_RDLCKP 5
> +#define F_WRLCKP 6
> +#define F_UNLCKP 7
> +
> /* for old implementation of bsd flock () */
> #ifndef F_EXLCK
> #define F_EXLCK 4 /* or 3 */
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
> --
> 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
--
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
