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: <20070530180309.GG7736@fieldses.org>
Date:	Wed, 30 May 2007 14:03:09 -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]

On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:35:32AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> 
> > --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?
> 
> Yes.  I need to get the server lock first, before going to the VFS locking
> routines.

That doesn't really answer the question.  The NFS client has similar
requirements, but it doesn't have to duplicate the per-inode lists of
granted locks, for example.

> The VFS routines as they stand aren't particularly useful, and they
> permit things that AFS doesn't support (such as lock upgrading).

Sure.  But handling those things is just a matter of checking for a few
special cases and making sure they're rejected before calling the posix
routines.

--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/