linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Consolidate sleeping routines in file locking code

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]

Date:	Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:39:04 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Consolidate sleeping routines in file locking code

On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 01:09:51PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 05:41:08PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> >> This is the next step in fs/locks.c cleanup before turning
> >> it into using the struct pid *. 
> >>
> >> This time I found, that there are some places that do a
> >> similar thing - they try to apply a lock on a file and go 
> >> to sleep on error till the blocker exits.
> >>
> >> All these places can be easily consolidated, saving 28 
> >> lines of code and more than 600 bytes from the .text,
> >> but there is one minor note. 
> > 
> > I'm not opposed to consolidating this code, but would it be possible to
> > do so in a more straightforward way, without passing in a callback
> > function?  E.g. a single __posix_lock_file_wait that just took an inode
> > instead of a filp and called __posix_lock_file() could be called from
> > both posix_lock_file_wait() and locks_mandatory_locked, right?
> 
> Well, the locks_mandatory_area() has to check for inode mode change
> in my lock callback, the fcntl_setlk() has to call the vfs_lock_file,
> and flock_lock_file_wait() has to call the flock_lock_file, so
> I don't see the ways of having one routine to lock the file.
> 
> If you don't mind, I'd port the patch with this approach (with the
> "trylock" callback) on the latest Andrew's tree.

OK.

> >> The locks_mandatory_area() code becomes a bit different 
> >> after this patch - it no longer checks for the inode's 
> >> permissions change. Nevertheless, this check is useless 
> >> without my another patch that wakes the waiter up in the
> >> notify_change(), which is not considered to be useful for
> >> now.
> > 
> > OK.  Might be better to submit this as a separate patch, though.
> 
> This one is already accepted, but I have just noticed that
> the check for __mandatory_lock() in wait_event_interruptible
> is ambiguous :(

I'm not sure what you mean here....  Do you have a fix?

--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/