linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description 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:	Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:22:19 -0400
From:	Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
	Ganesha NFS List <nfs-ganesha-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
	libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
	"Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" <metze@...ba.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description
 locks

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 03:16:29PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:48:29 -0400
> Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:32:38PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > Fair enough. Assuming we kept "file-description locks" as a name, what
> > > > > would you propose as new macro names?
> > > > 
> > > > I assume you meant, "assume we kept the term 'file-private locks'..."
> > > > In that case, at least make the constants something like
> > > > 
> > > > F_FP_SETLK
> > > > F_FP_SETLKW
> > > > F_FP_GETLK
> > > > 
> > > > so that they are not confused with the traditional constants.
> > > > 
> > > > Cheer,
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Actually no, I was asking how Rich would name the constants if we use
> > > the name "file-description locks" (as per the patch I posted this
> > > morning), since his objection was the use if *_FD_* names.
> > > 
> > > I would assume that if we stick with "file-private locks" as the name,
> > > then we'll still change the constants to a form like *_FP_*.
> > > 
> > > Also, to be clear...Frank is correct that the name "file-private" came
> > > from allowing the locks to be "private" to a particular open file
> > > description. Though I agree that it's a crappy name at best...
> > 
> > As I mentioned in a reply to Michael just now, I think FP is bad
> > because the whole problem is that legacy fcntl locks are associated
> > with the underlying file rather than the open file description (open
> > instance). So open-private (OP) might be a better choice than
> > file-private.
> 
> Is "open-private" or "open-file-private" really any better than
> "file-private" ? They're all names that only a mother could love and
> I'm not sure any of them are really any clearer than the others. Also:

Yes, much better. File-private expresses the current broken semantics
of fcntl locks: being associated with files. The whole point of the
new locks is NOT to be associated with files but with open file
descriptions.

Rich
--
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/