It's fairly useless to complain about using an obsolete feature without
telling the user which process used it. My Fedora desktop randomly drops
this message, but I would really need this patch to figure out what
triggers is.
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
---
fs/locks.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 607f94a0e789..2e45232dbeb1 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -2096,7 +2096,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd)
* throw a warning to let people know that they don't actually work.
*/
if (cmd & LOCK_MAND) {
- pr_warn_once("Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n");
+ pr_warn_once("%s: Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n", current->comm);
return 0;
}
--
2.37.3
On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:43 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> It's fairly useless to complain about using an obsolete feature without
> telling the user which process used it. My Fedora desktop randomly drops
> this message, but I would really need this patch to figure out what
> triggers is.
>
Interesting. The only program I know of that tried to use these was
samba, but we patched that out a few years ago (about the time this
patch went in). Are you running an older version of samba?
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/locks.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index 607f94a0e789..2e45232dbeb1 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -2096,7 +2096,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd)
> * throw a warning to let people know that they don't actually work.
> */
> if (cmd & LOCK_MAND) {
> - pr_warn_once("Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n");
> + pr_warn_once("%s: Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n", current->comm);
> return 0;
> }
>
Looks reasonable. Would it help to print the pid or tgid as well?
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 21:06 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:43 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > It's fairly useless to complain about using an obsolete feature without
> > telling the user which process used it. My Fedora desktop randomly drops
> > this message, but I would really need this patch to figure out what
> > triggers is.
> >
>
> Interesting. The only program I know of that tried to use these was
> samba, but we patched that out a few years ago (about the time this
> patch went in). Are you running an older version of samba?
>
> > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > fs/locks.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> > index 607f94a0e789..2e45232dbeb1 100644
> > --- a/fs/locks.c
> > +++ b/fs/locks.c
> > @@ -2096,7 +2096,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd)
> > * throw a warning to let people know that they don't actually work.
> > */
> > if (cmd & LOCK_MAND) {
> > - pr_warn_once("Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n");
> > + pr_warn_once("%s: Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n", current->comm);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
>
> Looks reasonable. Would it help to print the pid or tgid as well?
Merged into my locks-next branch, along with a small change to print
current->pid in addition to current->comm. This should make v6.2.
Thanks!
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
On 11/18/2022 6:06 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:43 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> It's fairly useless to complain about using an obsolete feature without
>> telling the user which process used it. My Fedora desktop randomly drops
>> this message, but I would really need this patch to figure out what
>> triggers is.
>>
> Interesting. The only program I know of that tried to use these was
> samba, but we patched that out a few years ago (about the time this
> patch went in). Are you running an older version of samba?
Yes it's running samba, whatever is in Fedora 35. Don't know if that
counts as an
older version.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> fs/locks.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
>> index 607f94a0e789..2e45232dbeb1 100644
>> --- a/fs/locks.c
>> +++ b/fs/locks.c
>> @@ -2096,7 +2096,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd)
>> * throw a warning to let people know that they don't actually work.
>> */
>> if (cmd & LOCK_MAND) {
>> - pr_warn_once("Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n");
>> + pr_warn_once("%s: Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n", current->comm);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
> Looks reasonable. Would it help to print the pid or tgid as well?
It wouldn't help me because at that time I see it it's likely long gone.
Just need the name.