linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] locks: implement "filp-private" (aka UNPOSIX) locks

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: <E1VVcWF-00HTkJ-B9@intern.SerNet.DE>
Date:	Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:24:46 +0200
From:	Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke@...Net.DE>
To:	Frank Filz <ffilzlnx@...dspring.com>
Cc:	'Jeff Layton' <jlayton@...hat.com>,
	'Scott Lovenberg' <scott.lovenberg@...il.com>,
	'Jeremy Allison' <jra@...ba.org>,
	'Andreas Dilger' <adilger@...ger.ca>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	'Ganesha NFS List' <nfs-ganesha-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
	'Linux Kernel Mailing List' <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] locks: implement "filp-private" (aka UNPOSIX)
 locks

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:12:03AM -0700, Frank Filz wrote:
> > This blog post of Jeremy's explains some of the history:
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.samba.org/samba/news/articles/low_point/tale_two_stds_os2
> > .html
> > 
> > See the section entitled "First Implementation Past the Post".
> 
> Interesting that Jeremy actually suggested the implementation should have
> had an arbitrary lock owner as part of the flock structure:
> 
> "This is an example of a POSIX interface not being future-proofed against
> modern techniques such as threading. A simple amendment to the original
> primitive allowing a user-defined "locking context" (like a process id) to
> be entered in the struct flock structure used to define the lock would have
> fixed this problem, along with extra flags allowing the number of locks per
> context to be recorded if needed."
> 
> But I'm happy with the lock context per kernel struct file as a solution,
> especially since that will allow locks to be sensibly passed to a forked
> process.
> 
> Another next step would be an asynchronous blocking lock...

Yes, please :-)

Volker

-- 
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt@...net.de
--
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/