On 09/02/2014 10:44 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:17:34PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There's a problem with getting information about who has a flock on
>> a specific file. The thing is that the "owner" field, that is shown in
>> /proc/locks is the pid of the task who created the flock, not the one
>> who _may_ hold it.
>>
>> If the flock creator shared the file with some other task (by forking
>> or via scm_rights) and then died or closed the file, the information
>> shown in proc no longer corresponds to the reality.
>>
>> This is critical for CRIU project, that tries to dump (and restore)
>> the state of running tasks. For example, let's take two tasks A and B
>> both opened a file "/foo", one of tasks places a LOCK_SH lock on the
>> file and then "obfuscated" the owner field in /proc/locks. After this
>> we have no ways to find out who is the lock holder.
>>
>> I'd like to note, that for LOCK_EX this problem is not critical -- we
>> may go to both tasks and "ask" them to LOCK_EX the file again (we can
>> do it in CRIU, I can tell more if required). The one who succeeds is
>> the lock holder.
>
> It could be both, actually, right?
Two succeeding with LOCK_EX? AFAIU no. Am I missing something?
>> With LOCK_SH this doesn't work. Trying to drop the
>> lock doesn't work either, as flock(LOCK_UN) reports 0 in both cases:
>> if the file is locked and if it is not.
>>
>> That said, I'd like to propose the LOCK_TEST flag to the flock call,
>> that would check whether the lock of the given type (LOCK_SH or LOCK_EX)
>> exists on the file we test. It's not the same as the existing in-kernel
>> FL_ACCESS flag, which checks whether the new lock is possible, but
>> it's a new FL_TEST flag, that checks whether the existing lock is there.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I guess I can't see anything really wrong with it.
>
> It ignores the (poorly documented) LOCK_MAND case, but maybe that's OK.
I actually checked it and it seemed to work. What problems do
you see with this case?
> Would it make sense to return the lock type held instead, so you could
> do one flock(fd, LOCK_TEST) instead of flock(fd, LOCK_TEST|LOCK_SH) and
> flock(fd, LOCK_TEST|LOCK_EX) ?
Well, in our case we parse /proc/locks anyway to see what
files at least to test for being locked. But what you propose
looks even better. I'll look what can be done here.
> It'd be nice if we could fix /proc/locks. (You'd think I'd know better,
> but I've certainly been confused before when /proc/locks told me a lock
> was owned by a nonexistant PID.) But as long as multiple PIDs can "own"
> a flock and as long as there's no simple ID we can use to refer to a
> given struct file, I don't see an easy solution.
>
> --b.
>
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xe...@parallels.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
>> index bb08857..50842bf 100644
>> --- a/fs/locks.c
>> +++ b/fs/locks.c
>> @@ -830,7 +830,7 @@ static int flock_lock_file(struct file *filp, struct
>> file_lock *request)
>> int found = 0;
>> LIST_HEAD(dispose);
>>
>> - if (!(request->fl_flags & FL_ACCESS) && (request->fl_type != F_UNLCK)) {
>> + if (!(request->fl_flags & (FL_ACCESS|FL_TEST)) && (request->fl_type !=
>> F_UNLCK)) {
>> new_fl = locks_alloc_lock();
>> if (!new_fl)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> @@ -850,11 +850,18 @@ static int flock_lock_file(struct file *filp, struct
>> file_lock *request)
>> continue;
>> if (request->fl_type == fl->fl_type)
>> goto out;
>> + if (request->fl_flags & FL_TEST)
>> + break;
>> found = 1;
>> locks_delete_lock(before, &dispose);
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> + if (request->fl_flags & FL_TEST) {
>> + error = -ENOENT;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> if (request->fl_type == F_UNLCK) {
>> if ((request->fl_flags & FL_EXISTS) && !found)
>> error = -ENOENT;
>> @@ -1852,15 +1859,16 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned
>> int, cmd)
>> {
>> struct fd f = fdget(fd);
>> struct file_lock *lock;
>> - int can_sleep, unlock;
>> + int can_sleep, unlock, test;
>> int error;
>>
>> error = -EBADF;
>> if (!f.file)
>> goto out;
>>
>> + test = (cmd & LOCK_TEST);
>> can_sleep = !(cmd & LOCK_NB);
>> - cmd &= ~LOCK_NB;
>> + cmd &= ~(LOCK_NB|LOCK_TEST);
>> unlock = (cmd == LOCK_UN);
>>
>> if (!unlock && !(cmd & LOCK_MAND) &&
>> @@ -1872,6 +1880,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int,
>> cmd)
>> goto out_putf;
>> if (can_sleep)
>> lock->fl_flags |= FL_SLEEP;
>> + if (test)
>> + lock->fl_flags |= FL_TEST;
>>
>> error = security_file_lock(f.file, lock->fl_type);
>> if (error)
>> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
>> index 9418772..9230e1d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
>> @@ -844,6 +844,7 @@ static inline struct file *get_file(struct file *f)
>> #define FL_DOWNGRADE_PENDING 256 /* Lease is being downgraded */
>> #define FL_UNLOCK_PENDING 512 /* Lease is being broken */
>> #define FL_OFDLCK 1024 /* lock is "owned" by struct file */
>> +#define FL_TEST 2048
>>
>> /*
>> * Special return value from posix_lock_file() and vfs_lock_file() for
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
>> b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
>> index 7543b3e..7302e36 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
>> @@ -184,6 +184,7 @@ struct f_owner_ex {
>> #define LOCK_READ 64 /* which allows concurrent read operations */
>> #define LOCK_WRITE 128 /* which allows concurrent write operations */
>> #define LOCK_RW 192 /* which allows concurrent read & write
>> ops */
>> +#define LOCK_TEST 256 /* check for my SH|EX locks present */
>>
>> #define F_LINUX_SPECIFIC_BASE 1024
>>
>>
> .
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
