On 08/03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/fcntl.c
> +++ linux-2.6/fs/fcntl.c
> @@ -197,13 +197,15 @@ static int setfl(int fd, struct file * f
>  }
>
>  static void f_modown(struct file *filp, struct pid *pid, enum pid_type type,
> -                     int force)
> +                  int flags)
>  {
>       write_lock_irq(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> -     if (force || !filp->f_owner.pid) {
> +     if ((flags & FF_SETOWN_FORCE) || !filp->f_owner.pid) {
>               put_pid(filp->f_owner.pid);
>               filp->f_owner.pid = get_pid(pid);
>               filp->f_owner.pid_type = type;
> +             filp->f_owner.task_only =
> +                     (type == PIDTYPE_PID && (flags & FF_SETOWN_TID));

Do we need type == PIDTYPE_PID check? FF_SETOWN_TID must imply
PIDTYPE_PID, it is only used by f_setown_tid().

Hmm. Actually I am not sure we should change f_modown() at all. I was
going to suggest this as a subsequent cleanup, but now I am starting
to think it is better to do from the very beginning. Please see below.

> +static int f_setown_tid(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg)
> +{
> +     int flags = FF_SETOWN_FORCE;
> +     struct pid *pid;
> +     int who = arg;
> +     int ret = 0;
> +
> +     if (who < 0)
> +             who = -who;
> +     else
> +             flags |= FF_SETOWN_TID;

Hmm, OK. so fcntl(F_SETOWN_TID, -666) <=> fcntl(F_SETOWN, +666).

Not that I disagree, but I think this should be discussed. Perhaps
F_SETOWN_TID can just reject who < 0.

> +static pid_t f_getown_tid(struct file *filp)
> +{
> +     pid_t tid;
> +
> +     read_lock(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> +     tid = pid_vnr(filp->f_owner.pid);
> +     if (filp->f_owner.pid_type == PIDTYPE_PGID)
> +             tid = 0;
> +     if (!filp->f_owner.task_only)
> +             tid = -tid;

I didn't think about this before... What should F_GETOWN_TID return
if we did F_GETOWN ? (and vice versa). f_getown_tid() returns < 0
if !task_only and ->piD != 0, this helps.

but the caller of F_GETOWN can't know what the returned value actually
means if F_GETOWN_TID was used.


Do we really need fown->task_only? Not only this enlarges fown_struct,
we have to modify f_modown() and f_setown().

Perhaps we can just add

        #define F_PIDTYPE_THREAD        PIDTYPE_MAX

into fcntl.c ? Then,

        static int f_setown_xxx(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg, int 
force, bool group)
        {
                enum pid_type type;
                struct pid *pid;
                int who = arg;
                int result;

                type = PIDTYPE_PID;
                if (!group)
                        type = F_PIDTYPE_THREAD
                else if (who < 0) {
                        type = PIDTYPE_PGID;
                        who = -who;
                }

                rcu_read_lock();
                pid = find_vpid(who);
                result = __f_setown(filp, pid, type, force);
                rcu_read_unlock();
                return result;
        }

        int f_setown(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg, int force)
        {
                return f_setown_xxx(..., true);
        }

Now we should also change send_sigio/send_sigurg, but this is trivial

                type = fown->pid_type;
        +       if (type == F_PIDTYPE_THREAD)
                        type = PIDTYPE_PID;

send_sigio_to_task() is trivial too.

What do you think? I agree, this is a bit hackish, but otoh this lessens
the changes outside of fcntl.h.

Oleg.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
perfmon2-devel mailing list
perfmon2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perfmon2-devel

Reply via email to