Re: [Nfs-ganesha-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] locks: add new "private"lock type that is owned by the filp

[Jeff Layton]

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:50:32 -0500
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:45:04AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Due to some unfortunate history, POSIX locks have very strange and
> > unhelpful semantics. The thing that usually catches people by surprise
> > is that they are dropped whenever the process closes any file descriptor
> > associated with the inode.
> > 
> > This is extremely problematic for people developing file servers that
> > need to implement byte-range locks. Developers often need a "lock
> > management" facility to ensure that file descriptors are not closed
> > until all of the locks associated with the inode are finished.
> > 
> > This patchset adds a new type of lock that attempts to address this
> > issue. These locks work just like "normal" POSIX read/write locks, but
> > have semantics that are more like BSD locks with respect to inheritance
> > and behavior on close.
> > 
> > This is implemented primarily by changing how fl_owner field is set for
> > these locks. Instead of having them owned by the files_struct of the
> > process, they are instead owned by the filp on which they were acquired.
> > Thus, they are inherited across fork() and are only released when the
> > last reference to a filp is put.
> > 
> > These new semantics prevent them from being merged with "classic" POSIX
> > locks, even if they are acquired by the same process. These locks will
> > also conflict with "classic" POSIX locks even if they are acquired by
> > the same process or on the same file descriptor.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  fs/locks.c                       | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> > index 86cafc3..3b278a6 100644
> > --- a/fs/locks.c
> > +++ b/fs/locks.c
> > @@ -348,6 +348,26 @@ static int posix_assign_type(struct file_lock *fl, long type)
> >  {
> >  	int err;
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * FL_FILP_PRIVATE locks are "owned" by the filp upon which they were
> > +	 * acquired, regardless of what task is dealing with them. Set the
> > +	 * fl_owner appropriately.
> > +	 */
> > +	switch (type) {
> > +	case F_RDLCKP:
> > +		type = F_RDLCK;
> > +		fl->fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)fl->fl_file;
> > +		break;
> > +	case F_WRLCKP:
> > +		type = F_WRLCK;
> > +		fl->fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)fl->fl_file;
> > +		break;
> > +	case F_UNLCKP:
> > +		type = F_UNLCK;
> > +		fl->fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)fl->fl_file;
> > +		break;
> > +	}
> > +
> 
> After this fl_owner gets set to current->files in
> flock{64}_to_posix_lock and then reset here.  That seems like a trap for
> the unwary reader.
> 
> Could you do something like rename this flock_to_posix_lock_common and
> move all the 32/64-bit-independent initialization here?
> 
> Looks like there's way more duplication than necessary between those two
> cases.
> 

Ok, finally got a chance to start looking at this again...

I agree that at first glance, it looks like there is a lot of
duplication between flock_to_posix_lock and flock64_to_posix_lock, but
the problem we have is that we need to initialize the file_locks with
info from two different types of structs that were passed in from
userland (flock and flock64).

I don't see a clean way to consolidate the two given that...

> (Also, why do we have an fl_owner_t instead of using a void?)
> 
> --b.
> 
> >  	err = assign_type(fl, type);
> >  	if (err)
> >  		return err;
> > @@ -2225,7 +2245,7 @@ void locks_remove_filp(struct file *filp)
> >  
> >  	while ((fl = *before) != NULL) {
> >  		if (fl->fl_file == filp) {
> > -			if (IS_FLOCK(fl)) {
> > +			if (IS_FLOCK(fl) || IS_POSIX(fl)) {
> >  				locks_delete_lock(before);
> >  				continue;
> >  			}
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> > index 95e46c8..6b7b68a 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> > @@ -151,6 +151,21 @@ struct f_owner_ex {
> >  #define F_UNLCK		2
> >  #endif
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * fd "private" POSIX locks.
> > + *
> > + * Usually POSIX locks held by a process are released on *any* close and are
> > + * not inherited across a fork().
> > + *
> > + * These lock types will conflict with normal POSIX locks, but are "owned"
> > + * by the fd, not the process. This means that they are inherited across
> > + * fork() like BSD (flock) locks, and they are only closed when the last
> > + * reference to the the filp against which were acquired is closed.
> > + */
> > +#define F_RDLCKP	5
> > +#define F_WRLCKP	6
> > +#define F_UNLCKP	7
> > +
> >  /* for old implementation of bsd flock () */
> >  #ifndef F_EXLCK
> >  #define F_EXLCK		4	/* or 3 */
> > -- 
> > 1.8.3.1
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription
> Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation.
> Intel(R) Software Adrenaline delivers strategic insight and game-changing 
> conversations that shape the rapidly evolving mobile landscape. Sign up now. 
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63431311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Nfs-ganesha-devel mailing list
> Nfs-ganesha-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs-ganesha-devel


-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/