From: "Aurélien Aptel" <aaptel@suse.com>
To: "Aurélien Aptel" <aaptel@suse.com>, "Tom Talpey" <tom@talpey.com>,
linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-man@vger.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com
Cc: smfrench@gmail.com
Subject: [PATCH v4] flock.2: add CIFS details
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 10:50:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210304095026.782-1-aaptel@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87v9a7w8q7.fsf@suse.com>
From: Aurelien Aptel <aaptel@suse.com>
Similarly to NFS, CIFS flock() locks behave differently than the
standard. Document those differences.
Here is the rendered text:
CIFS details
In Linux kernels up to 5.4, flock() is not propagated over SMB. A file
with such locks will not appear locked for remote clients.
Since Linux 5.5, flock() locks are emulated with SMB byte-range locks
on the entire file. Similarly to NFS, this means that fcntl(2) and
flock() locks interact with one another. Another important side-effect
is that the locks are not advisory anymore: a write on a locked file
will always fail with EACCES. This difference originates from the de-
sign of locks in the SMB protocol, which provides mandatory locking se-
mantics. The nobrl mount option (see mount.cifs(8)) turns off fnctl(2)
and flock() lock propagation to remote clients and makes flock() locks
advisory again.
Signed-off-by: Aurelien Aptel <aaptel@suse.com>
Reviewed-By: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
---
man2/flock.2 | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
diff --git a/man2/flock.2 b/man2/flock.2
index 61d4b5396..d447eac9c 100644
--- a/man2/flock.2
+++ b/man2/flock.2
@@ -239,6 +239,35 @@ see the discussion of the
.I "local_lock"
option in
.BR nfs (5).
+.SS CIFS details
+In Linux kernels up to 5.4,
+.BR flock ()
+is not propagated over SMB. A file with such locks will not appear
+locked for remote clients.
+.PP
+Since Linux 5.5,
+.BR flock ()
+locks are emulated with SMB byte-range locks on the entire
+file. Similarly to NFS, this means that
+.BR fcntl (2)
+and
+.BR flock ()
+locks interact with one another. Another important side-effect is that
+the locks are not advisory anymore: a write on a locked file will
+always fail with
+.BR EACCES .
+This difference originates from the design of locks in the SMB
+protocol, which provides mandatory locking semantics. The
+.I nobrl
+mount option (see
+.BR mount.cifs (8))
+turns off
+.BR fnctl (2)
+and
+.BR flock ()
+lock propagation to remote clients and makes
+.BR flock ()
+locks advisory again.
.SH SEE ALSO
.BR flock (1),
.BR close (2),
--
2.30.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-04 9:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-02 15:48 [man-pages][PATCH v1] flock.2: add CIFS details Aurélien Aptel
2021-03-03 15:37 ` Tom Talpey
2021-03-03 16:28 ` Aurélien Aptel
2021-03-03 16:37 ` [PATCH v2] " Aurélien Aptel
2021-03-03 18:08 ` Tom Talpey
2021-03-03 19:03 ` [PATCH v3] " Aurélien Aptel
2021-03-03 20:23 ` Tom Talpey
2021-03-04 9:48 ` Aurélien Aptel
2021-03-04 9:50 ` Aurélien Aptel [this message]
2021-03-10 19:07 ` [PATCH v4] " Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
2021-03-11 10:11 ` Aurélien Aptel
2021-03-11 16:21 ` Tom Talpey
2021-03-11 17:13 ` Aurélien Aptel
2021-03-11 17:29 ` Tom Talpey
2021-03-11 17:45 ` Aurélien Aptel
2021-03-11 20:42 ` Tom Talpey
2021-03-11 22:39 ` Aurélien Aptel
2021-03-15 18:05 ` Pavel Shilovsky
2021-03-16 10:42 ` Aurélien Aptel
2021-03-16 17:39 ` Pavel Shilovsky
2021-03-16 19:42 ` Tom Talpey
2021-03-16 23:04 ` Pavel Shilovsky
2021-03-22 14:30 ` [PATCH v5] " Aurélien Aptel
2021-04-09 12:13 ` Aurélien Aptel
2021-04-11 19:12 ` Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
2021-03-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v4] " Matthew Wilcox
2021-03-03 16:48 ` [man-pages][PATCH v1] " Tom Talpey
2021-03-03 16:57 ` Aurélien Aptel
2021-03-03 17:41 ` Tom Talpey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210304095026.782-1-aaptel@suse.com \
--to=aaptel@suse.com \
--cc=linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=smfrench@gmail.com \
--cc=tom@talpey.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).