linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: stsp <stsp2@yandex.ru>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] fd/locks: allow get the lock owner by F_OFD_GETLK
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 15:57:23 +0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a1e7f5c1-76ef-19e5-91db-a62f7615b28a@yandex.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5728ebda22a723b0eb209ae078e8f132d7b4ac7b.camel@kernel.org>

Hello,

20.06.2023 15:51, Jeff Layton пишет:
> On Tue, 2023-06-20 at 14:55 +0500, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>> Currently F_OFD_GETLK sets the pid of the lock owner to -1.
>> Remove such behavior to allow getting the proper owner's pid.
>> This may be helpful when you want to send some message (like SIGKILL)
>> to the offending locker.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stas Sergeev <stsp2@yandex.ru>
>>
>> CC: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
>> CC: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
>> CC: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
>> CC: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
>> CC: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
>> CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>
>> ---
>>   fs/locks.c | 2 --
>>   1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
>> index 210766007e63..ee265e166542 100644
>> --- a/fs/locks.c
>> +++ b/fs/locks.c
>> @@ -2158,8 +2158,6 @@ static pid_t locks_translate_pid(struct file_lock *fl, struct pid_namespace *ns)
>>   	pid_t vnr;
>>   	struct pid *pid;
>>   
>> -	if (IS_OFDLCK(fl))
>> -		return -1;
>>   	if (IS_REMOTELCK(fl))
>>   		return fl->fl_pid;
>>   	/*
> NACK on this one.
>
> OFD locks are not owned by processes. They are owned by the file
> description (hence the name). Because of this, returning a pid here is
> wrong.

But fd is owned by a process.
PID has a meaning, you can send SIGKILL
to the returned PID, and the lock is clear.
Was there any reason to hide the PID at
a first place?


> This precedent comes from BSD, where flock() and POSIX locks can
> conflict. BSD returns -1 for the pid if you call F_GETLK on a file
> locked with flock(). Since OFD locks have similar ownership semantics to
> flock() locks, we use the same convention here.
OK if you insist I can drop this one and
search the PID by some other means.
Just a bit unsure what makes it so important
to overwrite the potentially useful info
with -1.

So in case you insist on that, then should
I send a v2 or can you just drop the patch
yourself?

  reply	other threads:[~2023-06-20 10:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-06-20  9:55 [PATCH 0/3] RFC: F_OFD_GETLK should provide more info Stas Sergeev
2023-06-20  9:55 ` [PATCH 1/3] fs/locks: F_UNLCK extension for F_OFD_GETLK Stas Sergeev
2023-06-20 10:46   ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-20 11:00     ` stsp
2023-06-20 11:15       ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-21 15:24         ` stsp
2023-06-20  9:55 ` [PATCH 2/3] fd/locks: allow get the lock owner by F_OFD_GETLK Stas Sergeev
2023-06-20 10:51   ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-20 10:57     ` stsp [this message]
2023-06-20 11:12       ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-20 11:45         ` stsp
2023-06-20 12:02           ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-20 12:34             ` stsp
2023-06-20 13:19               ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-20 13:39                 ` stsp
2023-06-20 13:46                   ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-06-20 13:47                     ` stsp
2023-06-20 14:36                       ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-06-20 15:45                         ` stsp
2023-06-20 17:05                           ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-06-21  2:54                             ` stsp
2023-06-23 13:10                     ` David Laight
2023-06-20 13:58                   ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-21  6:57                     ` stsp
2023-06-21 10:35                       ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-21 10:42                         ` stsp
2023-06-21 11:05                           ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-21 11:22                             ` stsp
2023-06-21 11:26                               ` stsp
2023-06-23 15:25                             ` Christian Brauner
2023-06-23 17:18                               ` stsp
2023-06-27 16:00                                 ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-27 16:20                                   ` stsp
2023-06-20  9:55 ` [PATCH 3/3] selftests: add OFD lock tests Stas Sergeev
2023-06-20 11:06   ` Jeff Layton

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=a1e7f5c1-76ef-19e5-91db-a62f7615b28a@yandex.ru \
    --to=stsp2@yandex.ru \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
    --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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).