[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180317150533.GM30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 15:05:34 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Daniel P . Berrangé <berrange@...hat.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: change POSIX lock ownership on execve when
files_struct is displaced
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 10:25:20AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
>
> POSIX mandates that open fds and their associated file locks should be
> preserved across an execve. This works, unless the process is
> multithreaded at the time that execve is called.
>
> In that case, we'll end up unsharing the files_struct but the locks will
> still have their fl_owner set to the address of the old one. Eventually,
> when the other threads die and the last reference to the old
> files_struct is put, any POSIX locks get torn down since it looks like
> a close occurred on them.
>
> The result is that all of your open files will be intact with none of
> the locks you held before execve. The simple answer to this is "use OFD
> locks", but this is a nasty surprise and it violates the spec.
>
> On a successful execve, change ownership of any POSIX file_locks
> associated with the old files_struct to the new one, if we ended up
> swapping it out.
TBH, I don't like the way you implement that. Why not simply use
iterate_fd()?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists