J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:38:13PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >> This is a known feature that such "re-locking" is not atomic, >> but in the racy case the file should stay locked (although by >> some other process), but in this case the file will be unlocked. > > That's a little subtle (I assume you've never seen this actually > happen?), but it makes sense to me.
Well, this situation is hard to notice since usually programs try to finish up when some error is returned from the kernel, but I do believe that this could happen in one of the openvz kernels since we limit the kernel memory usage for "containers" and thus -ENOMEM is a common error. >> The proposal is to prepare the lock in advance keeping no chance >> to fail in the future code. > > And the patch certainly looks correct. > > I can add it to my (trivial) lock patches, if that's helpful--it'll > get folded into the branch -mm pulls from and I can pass it along to > Linus for 2.6.24. Thanks. > What I don't have that I wish I did is good regression tests for the > flock or lease code (for posix locks I've been using connectathon, > though that misses some important things too). > > --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/
