On Oct 24 17:59, Takashi Yano wrote: > Previously, lockf() printed a warning message when the number of locks > per file exceeds the limit (MAX_LOCKF_CNT). This patch makes lockf() > return ENOLCK in that case rather than printing the warning message. > > Addresses: https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/2024-October/256528.html > Fixes: 31390e4ca643 ("(inode_t::get_all_locks_list): Use pre-allocated buffer > in i_all_lf instead of allocating every lock. Return pointer to start of > linked list of locks.") > Reported-by: Christian Franke <christian.fra...@t-online.de> > Reviewed-by: Corinna Vinschen <cori...@vinschen.de> > Signed-off-by: Takashi Yano <takashi.y...@nifty.ne.jp> > --- > winsup/cygwin/flock.cc | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/flock.cc b/winsup/cygwin/flock.cc > index 5550b3a5b..b05005dab 100644 > --- a/winsup/cygwin/flock.cc > +++ b/winsup/cygwin/flock.cc > @@ -610,17 +614,13 @@ inode_t::get_all_locks_list () > dbi->ObjectName.Buffer[LOCK_OBJ_NAME_LEN] = L'\0'; > if (!newlock.from_obj_name (this, &i_all_lf, dbi->ObjectName.Buffer)) > continue; > - if (lock - i_all_lf >= MAX_LOCKF_CNT) > - { > - system_printf ("Warning, can't handle more than %d locks per > file.", > - MAX_LOCKF_CNT); > - break; > - } > + assert (lock - i_all_lf < MAX_LOCKF_CNT);
Shouldn't that be a <=? The original test above was off-by-one, right? But I still don't get it. The successful assert() will end the process as well, just like api_fatal. Shouldn't this situation just return ENOLCK as well, as the commit message suggests? Thanks, Corinna
