linux-kernel - [PATCH] filelock: add stubs for new functions when CONFIG_FILE

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20240204-flsplit3-v1-1-9820c7d9ce16@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2024 07:32:55 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 
 Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
 kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] filelock: add stubs for new functions when
 CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING=n

We recently added several functions to the file locking API. Add stubs
for those functions for when CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING is set to n.

Fixes: 403594111407 ("filelock: add some new helper functions")
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202402041412.6YvtlflL-lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
---
Just a small follow-on fix for CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING=n builds for the
file_lease split. Christian, it might be best to squash this into
the patch it Fixes.

That said, I'm starting to wonder if we ought to just hardcode
CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING to y. Does anyone ship kernels with it disabled? I
guess maybe people with stripped-down embedded builds might?

Another thought too: "locks_" as a prefix is awfully generic. Might it be
better to rename these new functions with a "filelock_" prefix instead?
That would better distinguish to the casual reader that this is dealing
with a file_lock object. I'm happy to respin the set if that's the
consensus.
---
 include/linux/filelock.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/filelock.h b/include/linux/filelock.h
index 4a5ad26962c1..553d65a88048 100644
--- a/include/linux/filelock.h
+++ b/include/linux/filelock.h
@@ -263,6 +263,27 @@ static inline int fcntl_getlease(struct file *filp)
 	return F_UNLCK;
 }
 
+static inline bool lock_is_unlock(struct file_lock *fl)
+{
+	return false;
+}
+
+static inline bool lock_is_read(struct file_lock *fl)
+{
+	return false;
+}
+
+static inline bool lock_is_write(struct file_lock *fl)
+{
+	return false;
+}
+
+static inline void locks_wake_up(struct file_lock *fl)
+{
+}
+
+#define for_each_file_lock(_fl, _head)	while(false)
+
 static inline void
 locks_free_lock_context(struct inode *inode)
 {

---
base-commit: 1499e59af376949b062cdc039257f811f6c1697f
change-id: 20240204-flsplit3-da666d82b7b4

Best regards,
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>