Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:08:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:08:55 -0400 Received: from web10501.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.130.151]:43292 "HELO web10501.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:08:53 -0400 Message-ID: <20020831041318.26193.qmail@web10501.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:13:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Andy Tai Reply-To: atai@atai.org Subject: Re: file locking (fcntl) bug in 2.4.19 To: atai@atai.org, Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020830205006.80088.qmail@web10501.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4543 Lines: 158 Hi, I just figured out the problem is not with the locking code in the kernel, which works with your patch, but in the user space application setting the file permission in such a way as to use mandatory locks, that surely fails on a NFS volume... The user space application in this case is Samba 2.2.5. Thanks for your help. Andy --- Andy Tai wrote: > Mr. Wilcox, thanks for the reply. I checked the > source of the stock 2.4.19 kernel and it seems to > have > part of the patch incorporated. I checked to make > sure the patch is fully applied and recompiled the > kernel, and the bug still shows up (less frequently, > but the test program lockbug.c can still trigger the > bug). It seems the problem is not totally gone yet. > > Thanks for any help. > > Andy > --- Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > Yep, 2.4 & 2.5 are broken. Here's a patch which > > both marcelo and alan > > refuse to apply, but fixes the problem. > > > > diff -urNX dontdiff linux-2418/fs/locks.c > > linux-2418-acct/fs/locks.c > > --- linux-2418/fs/locks.c Thu Oct 11 08:52:18 2001 > > +++ linux-2418-acct/fs/locks.c Mon Jul 1 16:23:36 > > 2002 > > @@ -134,15 +134,9 @@ > > static kmem_cache_t *filelock_cache; > > > > /* Allocate an empty lock structure. */ > > -static struct file_lock *locks_alloc_lock(int > > account) > > +static struct file_lock *locks_alloc_lock(void) > > { > > - struct file_lock *fl; > > - if (account && current->locks >= > > current->rlim[RLIMIT_LOCKS].rlim_cur) > > - return NULL; > > - fl = kmem_cache_alloc(filelock_cache, > > SLAB_KERNEL); > > - if (fl) > > - current->locks++; > > - return fl; > > + return kmem_cache_alloc(filelock_cache, > > SLAB_KERNEL); > > } > > > > /* Free a lock which is not in use. */ > > @@ -152,7 +146,6 @@ > > BUG(); > > return; > > } > > - current->locks--; > > if (waitqueue_active(&fl->fl_wait)) > > panic("Attempting to free lock with active wait > > queue"); > > > > @@ -219,7 +212,7 @@ > > /* Fill in a file_lock structure with an > > appropriate FLOCK lock. */ > > static struct file_lock *flock_make_lock(struct > > file *filp, unsigned int type) > > { > > - struct file_lock *fl = locks_alloc_lock(1); > > + struct file_lock *fl = locks_alloc_lock(); > > if (fl == NULL) > > return NULL; > > > > @@ -348,7 +341,7 @@ > > /* Allocate a file_lock initialised to this type > of > > lease */ > > static int lease_alloc(struct file *filp, int > type, > > struct file_lock **flp) > > { > > - struct file_lock *fl = locks_alloc_lock(1); > > + struct file_lock *fl = locks_alloc_lock(); > > if (fl == NULL) > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > @@ -712,7 +705,7 @@ > > size_t count) > > { > > struct file_lock *fl; > > - struct file_lock *new_fl = locks_alloc_lock(0); > > + struct file_lock *new_fl = locks_alloc_lock(); > > int error; > > > > if (new_fl == NULL) > > @@ -872,8 +865,8 @@ > > * We may need two file_lock structures for this > > operation, > > * so we get them in advance to avoid races. > > */ > > - new_fl = locks_alloc_lock(0); > > - new_fl2 = locks_alloc_lock(0); > > + new_fl = locks_alloc_lock(); > > + new_fl2 = locks_alloc_lock(); > > error = -ENOLCK; /* "no luck" */ > > if (!(new_fl && new_fl2)) > > goto out_nolock; > > @@ -1426,7 +1419,7 @@ > > int fcntl_setlk(unsigned int fd, unsigned int > cmd, > > struct flock *l) > > { > > struct file *filp; > > - struct file_lock *file_lock = > locks_alloc_lock(0); > > + struct file_lock *file_lock = > locks_alloc_lock(); > > struct flock flock; > > struct inode *inode; > > int error; > > @@ -1582,7 +1575,7 @@ > > int fcntl_setlk64(unsigned int fd, unsigned int > > cmd, struct flock64 *l) > > { > > struct file *filp; > > - struct file_lock *file_lock = > locks_alloc_lock(0); > > + struct file_lock *file_lock = > locks_alloc_lock(); > > struct flock64 flock; > > struct inode *inode; > > int error; > > > > -- > > Revolutions do not require corporate support. > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes > http://finance.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com - 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/