Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] glibc: header file and manual updates for file-private locks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 03:27:05 -0500
Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 14:03:54 Jeff Layton wrote:
> > I've been working on a set of patches to add a new type file record lock
> > to the Linux kernel that have less troublesome semantics on close and
> > that are usable by threaded applications.
> > 
> > I have a blog post here with more details:
> > 
> >    
> > http://jtlayton.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/file-private-posix-locks-aka-un-po
> > six-locks/
> > 
> > ...and the latest kernel patchset is here:
> > 
> >     https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/1/14/554
> > 
> > This patchset represents a set of corresponding updates for glibc. It
> > just adds the new cmd values to fcntl.h, and a manual update that
> > discusses how to use the new locks.
> > 
> > I'm currently shooting for a merge in v3.15 kernel so I'm posting this
> > as an RFC for now.
> 
> disclaimer: haven't read the kernel patches.  just the patch summary and your 
> blog post.
> 
> looks like the new API manipulates the existing POSIX lock only -- flock based 
> locks are still parallel.  too crazy to have the new API grab both since 
> you're bringing proper semantics that cover both ?
> 

Correct, at least in the Linux implementation. The basic idea is that
these *are* POSIX locks, they just have different behavior wrt
inheritance and on close.

We should note that on BSD, flock() and fcntl() based locks do
conflict. If they end up implementing file-private locks on BSD, then
they may also conflict with flock() locks just like classic POSIX locks
do there.

> a good summary of Linux locking from the perspective of userspace was posted 
> here sometime ago:
> 	http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/locking.html
> random notes/limitations/bugs are also in the various man pages like fcntl(2)
> would be nice if we could cover as many known limitations as possible with the 
> new api so as to not need yet another in the future ;)
> -mike

Yep, I've seen Lennart's summary. I think that the only thing this
doesn't approach doesn't address is his comment about using locks
on world-readable files. I don't see that there's much we can do about
that.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux