linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 14/14] locks: add new fcntl cmd values for handling file private 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]

Date:	Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:29:04 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
CC:	nfs-ganesha-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 14/14] locks: add new fcntl cmd values for handling
 file private locks

On 01/09/2014 06:19 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Due to some unfortunate history, POSIX locks have very strange and
> unhelpful semantics. The thing that usually catches people by surprise
> is that they are dropped whenever the process closes any file descriptor
> associated with the inode.
> 

[...]

> +#define F_GETLKP	36
> +#define F_SETLKP	37
> +#define F_SETLKPW	38
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
> +#ifndef F_GETLK64
> +#define F_GETLKP64	39
> +#define F_SETLKP64	40
> +#define F_SETLKPW64	41
> +#endif
> +#endif
> +

Since there are no existing callers of these fcntls, can you get rid of
the non-64-bit variants?  The implementation might be a bit more of
departure from current code, but it should make everything a lot cleaner
and make it easier (aka automatic) for new architectures to support this
feature.

--Andy
--
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/