linux-kernel - Re: should we change the name/macros of 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]

Message-ID: <534F0745.70705@samba.org>
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:42:13 +0200
From:	"Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" <metze@...ba.org>
To:	mtk.manpages@...il.com, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
CC:	libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
	Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
	samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Allison <jra@...gle.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ganesha NFS List <nfs-ganesha-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: should we change the name/macros of file-private locks?

Am 16.04.2014 22:00, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
> [CC += Jeremy Allison]
> 
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Sorry to spam so many lists, but I think this needs widespread
>> distribution and consensus.
>>
>> File-private locks have been merged into Linux for v3.15, and *now*
>> people are commenting that the name and macro definitions for the new
>> file-private locks suck.
>>
>> ...and I can't even disagree. They do suck.
>>
>> We're going to have to live with these for a long time, so it's
>> important that we be happy with the names before we're stuck with them.
> 
> So, to add my perspective: The existing byte-range locking system has
> persisted (despite egregious faults) for well over two decades. One
> supposes that Jeff's new improved version might be around
> at least as long. With that in mind, and before setting in stone (and
> pushing into POSIX) a model of thinking that thousands of programmers
> will live with for a long time, it's worth thinking about names.
> 
>> Michael Kerrisk suggested several names but I think the only one that
>> doesn't have other issues is "file-associated locks", which can be
>> distinguished against "process-associated" locks (aka classic POSIX
>> locks).
> 
> The names I have suggested are:
> 
>     file-associated locks
> 
> or
> 
>    file-handle locks
> 
> or (using POSIX terminology)
> 
>     file-description locks

I'd use file-handle, file-description or at least something that's
not associated to the "file" itself.

file-handle-associated or file-description-associated would also work.

> but that last might be a bit confusing to people who are not
> standards-aware. (The POSIX standard defines the thing that a "file
> descriptor" refers to as a "file description"; other people often call
> that thing a "file handle" or an "open file table entry" or a "struct
> file". The POSIX term is precise and unambiguous, but, unfortunately,
> the term is not common outside the standard and is also easily
> mistaken for "file descriptor".)
> 
>> At the same time, he suggested that we rename the command macros since
>> the 'P' suffix would no longer be relevant. He suggested something like
>> this:
>>
>>     F_FA_GETLK
>>     F_FA_SETLK
>>     F_FA_SETLKW

With file-description-associated this could be

F_FDA_*

metze
--
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/