Re: post 2.6.21 regression in F_GETLK

2007-05-10 Thread J. Bruce Fields
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:04:21PM -0400, bfields wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:01:05PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote: > > You are partly right on the test however note that it is using a start > > and len that are specific to the RDLCK so that should _only_ conflict > > with that lock. I did no

Re: post 2.6.21 regression in F_GETLK

2007-05-10 Thread J. Bruce Fields
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:01:05PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote: > You are partly right on the test however note that it is using a start > and len that are specific to the RDLCK so that should _only_ conflict > with that lock. I did notice that the LTP test is taking a new lock on > the entire file

Re: post 2.6.21 regression in F_GETLK

2007-05-10 Thread Doug Chapman
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 16:23 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > 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)

Re: post 2.6.21 regression in F_GETLK

2007-05-10 Thread Doug Chapman
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 15:38 -0400, J. Bruce Fields 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_GET

Re: post 2.6.21 regression in F_GETLK

2007-05-10 Thread J. Bruce Fields
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_GETL

Re: post 2.6.21 regression in F_GETLK

2007-05-10 Thread J. Bruce Fields
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 ta

Re: post 2.6.21 regression in F_GETLK

2007-05-10 Thread J. Bruce Fields
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. Ouch. > This can be demonstrated by eith

Re: post 2.6.21 regression in F_GETLK

2007-05-10 Thread Doug Chapman
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 14:56 -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. > > This can be demonstrated by either running f