linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] AFS: Implement file locking [try #2]

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: <20070529215736.GO6815@fieldses.org>
Date:	Tue, 29 May 2007 17:57:36 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AFS: Implement file locking [try #2]

One more vague question I had while skimming the previous version--

On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 03:54:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> +static void afs_grant_locks(struct afs_vnode *vnode, struct file_lock *fl)
> +{
> +	struct file_lock *p, *_p;
> +
> +	list_move_tail(&fl->fl_u.afs.link, &vnode->granted_locks);
> +	if (fl->fl_type == F_RDLCK) {
> +		list_for_each_entry_safe(p, _p, &vnode->pending_locks,
> +					 fl_u.afs.link) {
> +			if (p->fl_type == F_RDLCK) {
> +				p->fl_u.afs.state = AFS_LOCK_GRANTED;
> +				list_move_tail(&p->fl_u.afs.link,
> +					       &vnode->granted_locks);
> +				wake_up(&p->fl_wait);
> +			}
> +		}
> +	}
> +}

--without having tried to understand how they're actually used, these
data structures (like the pending_locks and granted_locks lists) seem to
duplicate stuff that's already kept in fs/locks.c.  Is there a reason
they're required?

--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/