[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.062 / U:1.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site