linux-kernel - Re: post 2.6.21 regression in F

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070510210421.GX13719@fieldses.org>
Date:	Thu, 10 May 2007 17:04:21 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Doug Chapman <doug.chapman@...com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
	Marc Eshel <eshel@...aden.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: post 2.6.21 regression in F_GETLK

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:01:05PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> You are partly right on the test however note that it is using a start
> and len that are specific to the RDLCK so that should _only_ conflict
> with that lock.  I did notice that the LTP test is taking a new lock on
> the entire file which should be blocked by eithe rthe RDLCK or the WRLCK
> and it doesn't check both, I plan on fixing that once this is resolved.
> 
> But, much more importantly F_GETLK is returning F_UNLCK saying that
> there was no conflict at all.

Argh, OK.  I still can't see the problem yet, then.  What filesystem is
this on?

--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/