Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:06:53 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Memory shortage can result in inconsistent flocks state | From | "J. Bruce Fields" <> |
| |
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:38:13PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > This is a known feature that such "re-locking" is not atomic, > but in the racy case the file should stay locked (although by > some other process), but in this case the file will be unlocked.
That's a little subtle (I assume you've never seen this actually happen?), but it makes sense to me.
> The proposal is to prepare the lock in advance keeping no chance > to fail in the future code.
And the patch certainly looks correct.
I can add it to my (trivial) lock patches, if that's helpful--it'll get folded into the branch -mm pulls from and I can pass it along to Linus for 2.6.24.
What I don't have that I wish I did is good regression tests for the flock or lease code (for posix locks I've been using connectathon, though that misses some important things too).
--b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |