lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: post 2.6.21 regression in F_GETLK
    From
    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.

    Also, this affects only F_GETLK, not F_SETLK, so you're not actually
    managing to acquire a conflicting lock, right?

    --b.
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-05-10 22:25    [W:0.019 / U:64.692 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site