linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add process name to locks warning

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: <28450a6a42b6004ecf3bc82844b1e716a6a18cd4.camel@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 19 Nov 2022 06:55:17 -0500
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     chuck.lever@...cle.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add process name to locks warning

On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 21:06 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:43 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > It's fairly useless to complain about using an obsolete feature without
> > telling the user which process used it. My Fedora desktop randomly drops
> > this message, but I would really need this patch to figure out what
> > triggers is.
> > 
> 
> Interesting. The only program I know of that tried to use these was
> samba, but we patched that out a few years ago (about the time this
> patch went in). Are you running an older version of samba?
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/locks.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> > index 607f94a0e789..2e45232dbeb1 100644
> > --- a/fs/locks.c
> > +++ b/fs/locks.c
> > @@ -2096,7 +2096,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd)
> >  	 * throw a warning to let people know that they don't actually work.
> >  	 */
> >  	if (cmd & LOCK_MAND) {
> > -		pr_warn_once("Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n");
> > +		pr_warn_once("%s: Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n", current->comm);
> >  		return 0;
> >  	}
> >  
> 
> Looks reasonable. Would it help to print the pid or tgid as well? 

Merged into my locks-next branch, along with a small change to print
current->pid in addition to current->comm. This should make v6.2.

Thanks!
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>