Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a7:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m36-v6csp2026651imm; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 06:12:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPyj/7wlb25RSVyyaXPGG4W2hX6ToppEgh1CRLsQtezAhBAXIum/awlowOod4VX+k5uCG3NZ X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:142:: with SMTP id 60-v6mr2095851plb.330.1533820352628; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 06:12:32 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1533820352; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=OqkNgGuhWEdZa1YT5xK7cNstIQa3n5PLX2Zp2vfAzlGaXT63E9HZqqyMZhZFYaA+Jo aHRok6vxlN1pIwXhB/cakk8VlFST4cZcYLMHIMriqy6I6Dcv72m3pcPb9PKXMzXMA5Tk NAkYm75vNJxQjrcc3Opc9zILtQRBRn7iCN2c74LfsSlRVyO20wbQbzKUJB14nAi6pio7 m2mqdFTetQBZ0v5w3H6SdNCZHksmz/HUBtau+k5jwUAUwRAEDYCtxXo9kWAU9KV24TzS /0Y9N/1TdgCkSvy1PXu8+TaDiZx5LjkX/OOqdlSMLer8FLo1hIO5BTgR5QEWXyB8HlDD 7BmA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=RJI7UPyf1BCir+VmWYhrSFrPtUnrPDzIK8gitN8WZvw=; b=lxweD4li6KYwN1B0iJ6j/Wid6FlhUJCvPc8T9EhkFeXof4DV5ynx4mBjL7tf+DU5y/ C02G2C1GZot3HGwK6Xriy2QKX3HlDSTgbRqSPdwI/reDOYEPcN0KMBX2haiYc6zecRUU SORvGrPrh1ZdhKOVHFmQbengt5SsrTB8Hxob6xwSNK+cfLxbLfaljhMhk9jJHLqfCmA9 ZhAqYNRbJQwHwsmEWZq0SVmWbXRzIBpBNBGzYXkeFrTRfOVlWh1oILThhAdzxPHzoPsF t8mAdL0HnlP9Gz6xOYquuRgnp+ImxrQWr/WfFEED3CW/LH0V1BrqRhJFOtb6pi8/gk62 YxyA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id g93-v6si5562102plb.249.2018.08.09.06.12.04; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 06:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731118AbeHIPeu (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 9 Aug 2018 11:34:50 -0400 Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:48394 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730419AbeHIPeu (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2018 11:34:50 -0400 Received: by fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id 5A79537E; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:09:59 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: NeilBrown Cc: Jeff Layton , Alexander Viro , Martin Wilck , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Frank Filz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] fs/locks: change all *_conflict() functions to return a new enum. Message-ID: <20180809130959.GH23873@fieldses.org> References: <153378012255.1220.6754153662007899557.stgit@noble> <153378028114.1220.3708291796442871726.stgit@noble> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <153378028114.1220.3708291796442871726.stgit@noble> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 12:04:41PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > In a future patch we will need to differentiate between conflicts that > are "transitive" and those that aren't. > A "transitive" conflict is defined as one where any lock that > conflicts with the first (newly requested) lock would conflict with > the existing lock. > > So change posix_locks_conflict(), flock_locks_conflict() (both > currently returning int) and leases_conflict() (currently returning > bool) to return "enum conflict". > Add locks_transitive_overlap() to make it possible to compute the > correct conflict for posix locks. > > The FL_NO_CONFLICT value is zero, so current code which only tests the > truth value of these functions will still work the same way. > > And convert some > return (foo); > to > return foo; > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown > --- > fs/locks.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c > index b4812da2a374..d06658b2dc7a 100644 > --- a/fs/locks.c > +++ b/fs/locks.c > @@ -139,6 +139,16 @@ > #define IS_OFDLCK(fl) (fl->fl_flags & FL_OFDLCK) > #define IS_REMOTELCK(fl) (fl->fl_pid <= 0) > > +/* A transitive conflict is one where the first lock conflicts with > + * the second lock, and any other lock that conflicts with the > + * first lock, also conflicts with the second lock. > + */ > +enum conflict { > + FL_NO_CONFLICT = 0, > + FL_CONFLICT, > + FL_TRANSITIVE_CONFLICT, > +}; > + > static inline bool is_remote_lock(struct file *filp) > { > return likely(!(filp->f_path.dentry->d_sb->s_flags & SB_NOREMOTELOCK)); > @@ -612,6 +622,15 @@ static inline int locks_overlap(struct file_lock *fl1, struct file_lock *fl2) > (fl2->fl_end >= fl1->fl_start)); > } > > +/* Check for transitive-overlap - true if any lock that overlaps > + * the first lock must overlap the seconds > + */ > +static inline bool locks_transitive_overlap(struct file_lock *fl1, > + struct file_lock *fl2) > +{ > + return (fl1->fl_start >= fl2->fl_start) && > + (fl1->fl_end <= fl2->fl_end); > +} > /* > * Check whether two locks have the same owner. > */ > @@ -793,47 +812,61 @@ locks_delete_lock_ctx(struct file_lock *fl, struct list_head *dispose) > /* Determine if lock sys_fl blocks lock caller_fl. Common functionality > * checks for shared/exclusive status of overlapping locks. > */ > -static int locks_conflict(struct file_lock *caller_fl, struct file_lock *sys_fl) > +static enum conflict locks_conflict(struct file_lock *caller_fl, > + struct file_lock *sys_fl) > { > if (sys_fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK) > - return 1; > + return FL_TRANSITIVE_CONFLICT; > if (caller_fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK) > - return 1; > - return 0; > + return FL_CONFLICT; > + return FL_NO_CONFLICT; > } > > /* Determine if lock sys_fl blocks lock caller_fl. POSIX specific > * checking before calling the locks_conflict(). > */ > -static int posix_locks_conflict(struct file_lock *caller_fl, struct file_lock *sys_fl) > +static enum conflict posix_locks_conflict(struct file_lock *caller_fl, > + struct file_lock *sys_fl) > { > /* POSIX locks owned by the same process do not conflict with > * each other. > */ > if (posix_same_owner(caller_fl, sys_fl)) > - return (0); > + return FL_NO_CONFLICT; > > /* Check whether they overlap */ > if (!locks_overlap(caller_fl, sys_fl)) > - return 0; > + return FL_NO_CONFLICT; > > - return (locks_conflict(caller_fl, sys_fl)); > + switch (locks_conflict(caller_fl, sys_fl)) { > + default: > + case FL_NO_CONFLICT: > + return FL_NO_CONFLICT; > + case FL_CONFLICT: > + return FL_CONFLICT; If I'm understanding the logic here and in locks_conflict correctly, you're telling me that in the case where sys_fl is a read lock, and caller_fl is a write lock, then any lock which conflicts with sys_fl must conflict with caller_fl? Or do I have that backwards? It doesn't sound right, in any case. --b. > + case FL_TRANSITIVE_CONFLICT: > + if (locks_transitive_overlap(caller_fl, sys_fl)) > + return FL_TRANSITIVE_CONFLICT; > + else > + return FL_CONFLICT; > + } > } > > /* Determine if lock sys_fl blocks lock caller_fl. FLOCK specific > * checking before calling the locks_conflict(). > */ > -static int flock_locks_conflict(struct file_lock *caller_fl, struct file_lock *sys_fl) > +static enum conflict flock_locks_conflict(struct file_lock *caller_fl, > + struct file_lock *sys_fl) > { > /* FLOCK locks referring to the same filp do not conflict with > * each other. > */ > if (caller_fl->fl_file == sys_fl->fl_file) > - return (0); > + return FL_NO_CONFLICT; > if ((caller_fl->fl_type & LOCK_MAND) || (sys_fl->fl_type & LOCK_MAND)) > - return 0; > + return FL_NO_CONFLICT; > > - return (locks_conflict(caller_fl, sys_fl)); > + return locks_conflict(caller_fl, sys_fl); > } > > void > @@ -1435,12 +1468,13 @@ static void time_out_leases(struct inode *inode, struct list_head *dispose) > } > } > > -static bool leases_conflict(struct file_lock *lease, struct file_lock *breaker) > +static enum conflict leases_conflict(struct file_lock *lease, > + struct file_lock *breaker) > { > if ((breaker->fl_flags & FL_LAYOUT) != (lease->fl_flags & FL_LAYOUT)) > - return false; > + return FL_NO_CONFLICT; > if ((breaker->fl_flags & FL_DELEG) && (lease->fl_flags & FL_LEASE)) > - return false; > + return FL_NO_CONFLICT; > return locks_conflict(breaker, lease); > } > >