linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] locks: report l_pid as -1 for FL_FILE

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: <20131210143155.147c6a55@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Date:	Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:31:55 -0500
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	nfs-ganesha-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	samba-technical@...ts.samba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] locks: report l_pid as -1 for FL_FILE_PVT locks

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:17:34 -0500
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:

> FL_FILE_PVT locks are no longer tied to a particular pid, and are
> instead inheritable by child processes. Report a l_pid of '-1' for
> these sorts of locks since the pid is somewhat meaningless for them.
> 
> This precedent comes from FreeBSD. There, POSIX and flock() locks can
> conflict with one another. If fcntl(F_GETLK, ...) returns a lock set
> with flock() then the l_pid member cannot be a process ID because the
> lock is not held by a process as such.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
> ---
>  fs/locks.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index e163a30..5372ddd 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -1899,7 +1899,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfs_test_lock);
>  
>  static int posix_lock_to_flock(struct flock *flock, struct file_lock *fl)
>  {
> -	flock->l_pid = fl->fl_pid;
> +	flock->l_pid = IS_FILE_PVT(fl) ? -1 : fl->fl_pid;
>  #if BITS_PER_LONG == 32
>  	/*
>  	 * Make sure we can represent the posix lock via
> @@ -1921,7 +1921,7 @@ static int posix_lock_to_flock(struct flock *flock, struct file_lock *fl)
>  #if BITS_PER_LONG == 32
>  static void posix_lock_to_flock64(struct flock64 *flock, struct file_lock *fl)
>  {
> -	flock->l_pid = fl->fl_pid;
> +	flock->l_pid = IS_FILE_PVT(fl) ? -1 : fl->fl_pid;
>  	flock->l_start = fl->fl_start;
>  	flock->l_len = fl->fl_end == OFFSET_MAX ? 0 :
>  		fl->fl_end - fl->fl_start + 1;

While I think this behavior is reasonable, I do wonder if we ought to
consider more changes to how F_GETLK works. Currently the F_GETLK code
won't handle the new l_type values, but maybe it should...

For instance, if there is a conflicting lock, and the F_GETLK caller
specified F_RDLCKP or F_WRLCKP, might it make sense to report the
l_type on the conflicting lock as F_RDLCKP or F_WRLCKP if that
conflicting lock is also a *P type?

...or maybe we should consider a new F_GETLKP cmd value, and a new
expanded struct flock that gives more info. The pid is already somewhat
meaningless with this sort of lock. Perhaps we could obfuscate the
fl_owner value and report that instead? What other sorts of info would
be useful to programs that intend to use these new interfaces?

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
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/