Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:38:59 -0400
To: Doug Chapman <doug.chapman@hp.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org,
       Marc Eshel <eshel@almaden.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: post 2.6.21 regression in F_GETLK
Message-ID: <20070510193859.GR13719@fieldses.org>
References: <1178823375.7247.11.camel@dchapman.boston.redhat.com> <20070510193050.GQ13719@fieldses.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070510193050.GQ13719@fieldses.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1312
Lines: 38

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.
> 
> Ouch.
> 
> > This can be demonstrated by either running fcntl11 from the LTP suite or
> > I have hacked up a much shorter version which demonstrates the issue and
> > am attaching it.
> > 
> > Using git bisect I came up with this commit as the one that introduced
> > the issue.
> 
> Thanks for the report--investigating....

Argh.  Looks like a cut-n-paste error.  Does this fix it?

--b.

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 671a034..909f454 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -1632,6 +1632,7 @@ static int posix_lock_to_flock(struct flock *flock, struct file_lock *fl)
 	flock->l_len = fl->fl_end == OFFSET_MAX ? 0 :
 		fl->fl_end - fl->fl_start + 1;
 	flock->l_whence = 0;
+	flock->l_type = fl->fl_type;
 	return 0;
 }
 
-
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/