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: <08612562-d2d7-a931-0c40-c401fff772c7@yandex.ru>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2023 20:45:21 +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:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
References: <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>
 <ddb48e05-ab26-ae5d-86d5-01e47f0f0cd2@yandex.ru>
 <ZJGtmrej8LraEsjj@casper.infradead.org>
 <cb88d464-30d8-810e-f3c4-35432d12a32d@yandex.ru>
 <ZJG5ZOK8HKl/eWmM@casper.infradead.org>
From:   stsp <stsp2@yandex.ru>
In-Reply-To: <ZJG5ZOK8HKl/eWmM@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


20.06.2023 19:36, Matthew Wilcox пишет:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 06:47:31PM +0500, stsp wrote:
>> 20.06.2023 18:46, Matthew Wilcox пишет:
>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 06:39:07PM +0500, stsp wrote:
>>>> Though it will, for sure, represent the
>>>> task that _owns_ the lock.
>>> No, it *DOESN'T*.  I can open a file, SCM_RIGHTS pass it to another task
>>> and then exit.  Now the only owner of that lock is the recipient ...
>> Won't I get the recipient's pid in an
>> l_pid then?
> You snipped the part where I pointed out that at times there can be
> _no_ task that owns it.  open a fd, set the lock, pass the fd to another
> task, exit.  until that task calls recvmsg(), no task owns it.
Hmm, interesting case.
So at least it seems if recipient also exits,
then the untransferred fd gets closed.
Does this mean, by any chance, that the
recipient actually owns an fd before
recvmsg() is done?