lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] please pull file-locking related changes for v3.20
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:45:00AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:00:46AM +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:13:39 -0800
> > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:08 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree that it's weird, but I think it's what we're stuck with.
> > >
> > > And if by "weird" you mean "flock is really not a well-defined or sane
> > > interface", I'll agree with you.
> > >
> > > That said, I'm not at all sure about the "we're stuck with it". We can
> > > improve the semantics without anybody noticing, because it's not like
> > > anybody could *depend* on the weaker semantics - they needed
> > > particular races and timings to hit anyway.
> >
> > The BSD implementation does not documented such a race, or indeed appear
> > to have one. That implies that nothing using flock should have this
> > problem.
>
> Which race are you talking about exactly, and what evidence are you
> working from?

To clarify: I previously conflated two issues:

- the temporary drop of the spinlock in flock_lock_file().
Agreed that that's pointless, and has been fixed.

- non-atomic flock upgrades: that's definitely documented
behavior on BSD.

--b.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-26 16:41    [W:0.051 / U:0.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site