Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Aug 2003 05:13:52 +0200 (CEST) | From | Andreas Gruenbacher <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.4: Fix steal_locks race |
| |
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 04:04:53AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > > > > My patch is buggy too. If a file is closed by another clone between > > > the two steal_locks calls the lock will again be lost. Fortunately > > > this much harder to trigger than the previous bug. > > > > I think this is not a strict bug---this scenario is not covered by POSIX > > in the first place. Unless lock stealing is done atomically with > > unshare_files there is a window of oportunity between unshare_files() and > > steal_locks(), so locks can still get lost. > > It's not a standard compliance issue. In this case the lock will never > be released and it will eventually lead to a crash when someone reads > /proc/locks.
I don't see how this would happen. Could you please elaborate? - 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/
| |