On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:18:47 +0000
One Thousand Gnomes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > +#define ESHAREDENIED 258 /* File is locked with a sharelock */
>
> Have you prepared C library patches to match this ?
>
> (and why not just use EPERM, it has the meaning you want already)
>
Tough call...
On the one hand, ESHAREDENIED is a distinct error code so an
application has the ability to determine what happened when an open or
unlink fails.
OTOH, a lot of applications won't understand ESHAREDENIED and may barf
on it. Those apps might handle EPERM better.
I'm not sure what the right approach is there...
>
> > + * Check to see if there's a share_reservation conflict.
> > LOCK_READ/LOCK_WRITE
> > + * tell us whether the reservation allows other readers and writers.
> > + */
> > +static int
> > +locks_mand_conflict(struct file_lock *caller_fl, struct file_lock *sys_fl)
> > +{
>
> Shouldn't this also check for CAP_SYS_DAC or some similar permission so
> that root can override such a mess (eg to fix full disks in an
> emergency) ?
>
>
Agreed. This needs a mechanism that allows you to override it, IMO.
CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE doesn't seem quite like the right thing since this
isn't dealing with permissions, per-se. A new capability bit may even be
warranted.
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * For sharelock mounts if a file was created but not opened, we need
> > + * to keep parent i_mutex until we finish the open to prevent races when
> > + * somebody opens newly created by us file and locks it with a sharelock
> > + * before we open it.
> > + */
> > + if (IS_SHARELOCK(dir->d_inode) && error > 0 && *opened & FILE_CREATED) {
> > + /* Don't check for write permission, don't truncate */
> > + open_flag &= ~O_TRUNC;
> > + will_truncate = false;
> > + acc_mode = MAY_OPEN;
> > + path_to_nameidata(path, nd);
> > +
> > + error = may_open(&nd->path, acc_mode, open_flag);
> > + if (error) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + file->f_path.mnt = nd->path.mnt;
> > + error = finish_open(file, nd->path.dentry, NULL, opened);
> > + if (error) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
> > + if (error == -EOPENSTALE)
> > + goto stale_open;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + error = sharelock_lock_file(file);
> > + mutex_unlock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
> > + if (error)
> > + goto exit_fput;
> > + goto opened;
> > + }
> > +
> > mutex_unlock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
>
> What stops the file system changing mount flags via a remount between
> these two ?
>
> >
> > if (error <= 0) {
> > @@ -3034,6 +3073,18 @@ finish_open_created:
> > goto stale_open;
> > goto out;
> > }
> > +
> > + if (IS_SHARELOCK(dir->d_inode)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Lock parent i_mutex to prevent races with sharelocks on
> > + * newly created files.
> > + */
> > + mutex_lock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
> > + error = sharelock_lock_file(file);
> > + mutex_unlock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
> > + if (error)
> > + goto exit_fput;
> > + }
> > opened:
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
