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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:56:40 +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 Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:23:03AM -0700, Frank Filz wrote:
> > 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 :-)
> 
> What model would be useful to you (and for what project)? One thing I could

It's ctdb that would be mainly interested in this. ctdb
deals a lot with out tdb files, a shared mmap key/value
database protected by fcntl locks. ctdb is the database
daemon distributing records in a cluster. It is a
single-threaded async event loop, and it has to fork helper
processes waiting for locks.

> think of is since we have a file descriptor for each lock owner/file pair,
> we could do something like select on those descriptors, got to think about
> how that would actually work though... The vfs lock layer does inherently
> support a kernel call back when a blocked lock can be unblocked, so we just
> need to figure out the best way to hook that up to user space in a way that
> doesn't require a thread per blocked lock.

A model that would probably work for us is one file
descriptor that becomes readable when one of the blocking
lock states changes. To signal which one changed, I think
passing an opaque uint64 (usable as a pointer) for the
blocking lock would be great, or possibly something like
epoll_data_t. We would pass this in the fcntl call and read
it from the signal, possibly together with an errno
(EDEADLK?). Not sure if this is feasible kernel-side, but I
believe this is something that would work for us user-side.

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/