On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:38:59PM -0400, bfields wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:30:50PM -0400, bfields wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote: > > > A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test > > > fcntl11. It appears that F_GETLK is not properly checking for existing > > > F_RDLCK and allows taking out a write lock.
Hm, actually, could you double-check the test results? Looking at your test case, it appears that it fails when the lock returned from the fcntl(.,F_GETLK,.) has an l_type != F_RDLCK. That doesn't necessarily mean the F_GETLK is reporting no conflict. I believe the bug is actually that it's reporting the wrong kind of conflict--so it's returning l_type == F_WRLCK, not F_UNLCK. Also, this affects only F_GETLK, not F_SETLK, so you're not actually managing to acquire a conflicting lock, right? --b. - 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/
