Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <ddb48e05-ab26-ae5d-86d5-01e47f0f0cd2@yandex.ru>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2023 18:39:07 +0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] fd/locks: allow get the lock owner by F_OFD_GETLK
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230620095507.2677463-1-stsp2@yandex.ru>
 <20230620095507.2677463-3-stsp2@yandex.ru>
 <5728ebda22a723b0eb209ae078e8f132d7b4ac7b.camel@kernel.org>
 <a1e7f5c1-76ef-19e5-91db-a62f7615b28a@yandex.ru>
 <eaccc14ddc6b546e5913eb557fec55f77cb5424d.camel@kernel.org>
 <5f644a24-90b5-a02f-b593-49336e8e0f5a@yandex.ru>
 <2eb8566726e95a01536b61a3b8d0343379092b94.camel@kernel.org>
 <d70b6831-3443-51d0-f64c-6f6996367a85@yandex.ru>
 <d0c18369245db91a3b78017fabdc81417418af67.camel@kernel.org>
From:   stsp <stsp2@yandex.ru>
In-Reply-To: <d0c18369245db91a3b78017fabdc81417418af67.camel@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


20.06.2023 18:19, Jeff Layton пишет:
> The bottom line is that these locks are specifically not owned by a
> process, so returning the l_pid field is unreliable (at best). There is
> no guarantee that the pid returned will still represent the task that
> set the lock.

Though it will, for sure, represent the
task that _owns_ the lock.

> You may want to review this article. They're called "File-private" locks
> here, but the name was later changed to "Open file description" (OFD)
> locks:
>
>      https://lwn.net/Articles/586904/
>
> The rationale for why -1 is reported is noted there.
Well, they point to fork() and SCM_RIGHTS.
Yes, these 2 beasts can make the same lock
owned by more than one process.
Yet l_pid returned, is going to be always valid:
it will still represent one of the valid owners.
So my call is to be brave and just re-consider
the conclusion of that article, made 10 years
ago! :)

Of course if returning just 1 of possibly multiple
owners is a problem, then oh well, I'll drop
this patch.