[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171011134500.GB25913@fieldses.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:45:00 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@....com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/afs/flock and fs/locks: Fix possible sleep-in-atomic
bugs in posix_lock_file
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:47:43AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
>
> > Does that mean nobody's tested fcntl locking over afs since that change in
> > 2010?
>
> Quite feasibly not. I've been beating kAFS into shape and I'm aware of the
> lock thing. It's on the list after getting the core server rotation working
> properly since that will affect a whole bunch of code, including the locking
> code.
>
> I've more or less finished the server rotation bit. See:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/log/?h=afs-2-experimental
Neat!
Well, pending a real fix I suppose it's probably clearest to leave the
locking code in an obviously broken state. Might be worth a comment
though.
--b.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists