On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 16:23 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:38:59PM -0400, bfields wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:30:50PM -0400, bfields wrote: > > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote: > > > > A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test > > > > fcntl11. It appears that F_GETLK is not properly checking for existing > > > > F_RDLCK and allows taking out a write lock. > > Hm, actually, could you double-check the test results? Looking at your > test case, it appears that it fails when the lock returned from the > fcntl(.,F_GETLK,.) has an l_type != F_RDLCK. That doesn't necessarily > mean the F_GETLK is reporting no conflict. I believe the bug is > actually that it's reporting the wrong kind of conflict--so it's > returning l_type == F_WRLCK, not F_UNLCK.
You are partly right on the test however note that it is using a start and len that are specific to the RDLCK so that should _only_ conflict with that lock. I did notice that the LTP test is taking a new lock on the entire file which should be blocked by eithe rthe RDLCK or the WRLCK and it doesn't check both, I plan on fixing that once this is resolved. But, much more importantly F_GETLK is returning F_UNLCK saying that there was no conflict at all. > Also, this affects only F_GETLK, not F_SETLK, so you're not actually > managing to acquire a conflicting lock, right? > True, this doesn't actually acquire the lock. I have not tested to see if trying a conflicting F_SETLK blocks as it should. I will test that later. I missed lunch today so I won't get back to this until later tonight or tomorrow.... - Doug - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/