* Re: [PATCH v2] cifs: allow unlock flock and OFD lock across fork
2020-02-21 2:30 [PATCH v2] cifs: allow unlock flock and OFD lock across fork Murphy Zhou
@ 2020-02-26 15:39 ` Murphy Zhou
2020-02-26 18:41 ` Pavel Shilovsky
2020-03-04 2:33 ` Murphy Zhou
2020-03-04 4:42 ` Pavel Shilovsky
2020-03-04 6:18 ` Steve French
2 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Murphy Zhou @ 2020-02-26 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-cifs; +Cc: Jeff Layton, Steve French, Pavel Shilovsky, Murphy Zhou
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:30:01AM +0800, Murphy Zhou wrote:
> Since commit d0677992d2af ("cifs: add support for flock") added
> support for flock, LTP/flock03[1] testcase started to fail.
>
> This testcase is testing flock lock and unlock across fork.
> The parent locks file and starts the child process, in which
> it unlock the same fd and lock the same file with another fd
> again. All the lock and unlock operation should succeed.
>
> Now the child process does not actually unlock the file, so
> the following lock fails. Fix this by allowing flock and OFD
> lock go through the unlock routine, not skipping if the unlock
> request comes from another process.
>
> Patch has been tested by LTP/xfstests on samba and Windows
> server, v3.11, with or without cache=none mount option.
Also tested with or without "nolease" mount option. No new
issue shows.
Thanks!
>
> [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock03.c
> Signed-off-by: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com>
> ---
> fs/cifs/smb2file.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c
> index afe1f03aabe3..eebfbf3a8c80 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c
> @@ -152,7 +152,12 @@ smb2_unlock_range(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile, struct file_lock *flock,
> (li->offset + li->length))
> continue;
> if (current->tgid != li->pid)
> - continue;
> + /*
> + * flock and OFD lock are associated with an open
> + * file description, not the process.
> + */
> + if (!(flock->fl_flags & (FL_FLOCK | FL_OFDLCK)))
> + continue;
> if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) {
> /*
> * We can cache brlock requests - simply remove a lock
> --
> 2.20.1
>
>
--
Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] cifs: allow unlock flock and OFD lock across fork
2020-02-26 15:39 ` Murphy Zhou
@ 2020-02-26 18:41 ` Pavel Shilovsky
2020-03-04 2:33 ` Murphy Zhou
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Shilovsky @ 2020-02-26 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Murphy Zhou; +Cc: linux-cifs, Jeff Layton, Steve French
ср, 26 февр. 2020 г. в 07:39, Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com>:
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:30:01AM +0800, Murphy Zhou wrote:
> > Since commit d0677992d2af ("cifs: add support for flock") added
> > support for flock, LTP/flock03[1] testcase started to fail.
> >
> > This testcase is testing flock lock and unlock across fork.
> > The parent locks file and starts the child process, in which
> > it unlock the same fd and lock the same file with another fd
> > again. All the lock and unlock operation should succeed.
> >
> > Now the child process does not actually unlock the file, so
> > the following lock fails. Fix this by allowing flock and OFD
> > lock go through the unlock routine, not skipping if the unlock
> > request comes from another process.
> >
> > Patch has been tested by LTP/xfstests on samba and Windows
> > server, v3.11, with or without cache=none mount option.
>
> Also tested with or without "nolease" mount option. No new
> issue shows.
>
Great, thanks!
--
Best regards,
Pavel Shilovsky
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] cifs: allow unlock flock and OFD lock across fork
2020-02-26 15:39 ` Murphy Zhou
2020-02-26 18:41 ` Pavel Shilovsky
@ 2020-03-04 2:33 ` Murphy Zhou
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Murphy Zhou @ 2020-03-04 2:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-cifs; +Cc: Jeff Layton, Steve French, Murphy Zhou, Pavel Shilovsky
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:39:41PM +0800, Murphy Zhou wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:30:01AM +0800, Murphy Zhou wrote:
> > Since commit d0677992d2af ("cifs: add support for flock") added
> > support for flock, LTP/flock03[1] testcase started to fail.
Ping on this one?
> >
> > This testcase is testing flock lock and unlock across fork.
> > The parent locks file and starts the child process, in which
> > it unlock the same fd and lock the same file with another fd
> > again. All the lock and unlock operation should succeed.
> >
> > Now the child process does not actually unlock the file, so
> > the following lock fails. Fix this by allowing flock and OFD
> > lock go through the unlock routine, not skipping if the unlock
> > request comes from another process.
> >
> > Patch has been tested by LTP/xfstests on samba and Windows
> > server, v3.11, with or without cache=none mount option.
>
> Also tested with or without "nolease" mount option. No new
> issue shows.
>
> Thanks!
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock03.c
> > Signed-off-by: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > fs/cifs/smb2file.c | 7 ++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c
> > index afe1f03aabe3..eebfbf3a8c80 100644
> > --- a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c
> > +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c
> > @@ -152,7 +152,12 @@ smb2_unlock_range(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile, struct file_lock *flock,
> > (li->offset + li->length))
> > continue;
> > if (current->tgid != li->pid)
> > - continue;
> > + /*
> > + * flock and OFD lock are associated with an open
> > + * file description, not the process.
> > + */
> > + if (!(flock->fl_flags & (FL_FLOCK | FL_OFDLCK)))
> > + continue;
> > if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) {
> > /*
> > * We can cache brlock requests - simply remove a lock
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >
> >
>
> --
> Murphy
--
Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] cifs: allow unlock flock and OFD lock across fork
2020-02-21 2:30 [PATCH v2] cifs: allow unlock flock and OFD lock across fork Murphy Zhou
2020-02-26 15:39 ` Murphy Zhou
@ 2020-03-04 4:42 ` Pavel Shilovsky
2020-03-04 6:18 ` Steve French
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Shilovsky @ 2020-03-04 4:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Murphy Zhou; +Cc: linux-cifs, Jeff Layton, Steve French
It looks that I forgot to ack the patch:
Acked-by: Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov@microsoft.com>
--
Best regards,
Pavel Shilovsky
чт, 20 февр. 2020 г. в 18:30, Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com>:
>
> Since commit d0677992d2af ("cifs: add support for flock") added
> support for flock, LTP/flock03[1] testcase started to fail.
>
> This testcase is testing flock lock and unlock across fork.
> The parent locks file and starts the child process, in which
> it unlock the same fd and lock the same file with another fd
> again. All the lock and unlock operation should succeed.
>
> Now the child process does not actually unlock the file, so
> the following lock fails. Fix this by allowing flock and OFD
> lock go through the unlock routine, not skipping if the unlock
> request comes from another process.
>
> Patch has been tested by LTP/xfstests on samba and Windows
> server, v3.11, with or without cache=none mount option.
>
> [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock03.c
> Signed-off-by: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com>
> ---
> fs/cifs/smb2file.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c
> index afe1f03aabe3..eebfbf3a8c80 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c
> @@ -152,7 +152,12 @@ smb2_unlock_range(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile, struct file_lock *flock,
> (li->offset + li->length))
> continue;
> if (current->tgid != li->pid)
> - continue;
> + /*
> + * flock and OFD lock are associated with an open
> + * file description, not the process.
> + */
> + if (!(flock->fl_flags & (FL_FLOCK | FL_OFDLCK)))
> + continue;
> if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) {
> /*
> * We can cache brlock requests - simply remove a lock
> --
> 2.20.1
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] cifs: allow unlock flock and OFD lock across fork
2020-02-21 2:30 [PATCH v2] cifs: allow unlock flock and OFD lock across fork Murphy Zhou
2020-02-26 15:39 ` Murphy Zhou
2020-03-04 4:42 ` Pavel Shilovsky
@ 2020-03-04 6:18 ` Steve French
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Steve French @ 2020-03-04 6:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Murphy Zhou; +Cc: CIFS, Jeff Layton, Pavel Shilovsky
tentatively merged into cifs-2.6.git for-next pending more testing
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 8:30 PM Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Since commit d0677992d2af ("cifs: add support for flock") added
> support for flock, LTP/flock03[1] testcase started to fail.
>
> This testcase is testing flock lock and unlock across fork.
> The parent locks file and starts the child process, in which
> it unlock the same fd and lock the same file with another fd
> again. All the lock and unlock operation should succeed.
>
> Now the child process does not actually unlock the file, so
> the following lock fails. Fix this by allowing flock and OFD
> lock go through the unlock routine, not skipping if the unlock
> request comes from another process.
>
> Patch has been tested by LTP/xfstests on samba and Windows
> server, v3.11, with or without cache=none mount option.
>
> [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock03.c
> Signed-off-by: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com>
> ---
> fs/cifs/smb2file.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c
> index afe1f03aabe3..eebfbf3a8c80 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c
> @@ -152,7 +152,12 @@ smb2_unlock_range(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile, struct file_lock *flock,
> (li->offset + li->length))
> continue;
> if (current->tgid != li->pid)
> - continue;
> + /*
> + * flock and OFD lock are associated with an open
> + * file description, not the process.
> + */
> + if (!(flock->fl_flags & (FL_FLOCK | FL_OFDLCK)))
> + continue;
> if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) {
> /*
> * We can cache brlock requests - simply remove a lock
> --
> 2.20.1
>
>
--
Thanks,
Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread