linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] locks: move flock locks to file_lock

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: <20150109064755.1c88bd4d@synchrony.poochiereds.net>
Date:	Fri, 9 Jan 2015 06:47:55 -0800
From:	Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] locks: move flock locks to file_lock_context

On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 06:31:55 -0800
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:

> >  void ceph_count_locks(struct inode *inode, int *fcntl_count, int *flock_count)
> >  {
> >  	struct file_lock *lock;
> > +	struct file_lock_context *ctx;
> >  
> >  	*fcntl_count = 0;
> >  	*flock_count = 0;
> >  
> > +	spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> 
> Seems like moving the locking around is unrelated to this patch.
> 

Yeah that could be split out into a separate cleanup patch first. I'll
do that on the next iteration.

> > +	list_for_each_entry(fl, &flctx->flc_flock, fl_list) {
> > +		if (nfs_file_open_context(fl->fl_file)->state != state)
> > +			continue;
> > +		spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> > +		status = ops->recover_lock(state, fl);
> > +		switch (status) {
> > +			case 0:
> > +				break;
> > +			case -ESTALE:
> > +			case -NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED:
> > +			case -NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID:
> > +			case -NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID:
> > +			case -NFS4ERR_EXPIRED:
> > +			case -NFS4ERR_NO_GRACE:
> > +			case -NFS4ERR_STALE_CLIENTID:
> > +			case -NFS4ERR_BADSESSION:
> > +			case -NFS4ERR_BADSLOT:
> > +			case -NFS4ERR_BAD_HIGH_SLOT:
> > +			case -NFS4ERR_CONN_NOT_BOUND_TO_SESSION:
> > +				goto out;
> > +			default:
> > +				printk(KERN_ERR "NFS: %s: unhandled error %d\n",
> > +					 __func__, status);
> > +			case -ENOMEM:
> > +			case -NFS4ERR_DENIED:
> > +			case -NFS4ERR_RECLAIM_BAD:
> > +			case -NFS4ERR_RECLAIM_CONFLICT:
> > +				/* kill_proc(fl->fl_pid, SIGLOST, 1); */
> > +				status = 0;
> > +		}
> 
> Instead of duplicating this huge body of code it seems like a good idea
> to add a preparatory patch to factor it out into a helper function.
> 

Sigh, I tried to do that first but the result was just too ugly. The
above logic is too deeply entwined into this function for that to work
well. I'm not usually a fan of cut and paste, but in this case I think
it's the best way to do this. The good news is that the duplication
goes away with the next patch in the series.

> > +static bool
> > +is_whole_file_wrlock(struct file_lock *fl)
> > +{
> > +	return fl->fl_start == 0 && fl->fl_end == OFFSET_MAX && fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK;
> > +}
> 
> Please break this into multiple lines to stay under 80 characters.

Will do. I've probably violated that rule several times in this series
-- mea culpa. I'll clean that up for the next iteration.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.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/