| Message ID | 20200221023001.vcoc5f43rdqqeifn@xzhoux.usersys.redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] cifs: allow unlock flock and OFD lock across fork | expand |
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:30:01AM +0800, Murphy Zhou wrote: > Since commit d0677992d2af ("cifs: add support for flock") added > support for flock, LTP/flock03[1] testcase started to fail. > > This testcase is testing flock lock and unlock across fork. > The parent locks file and starts the child process, in which > it unlock the same fd and lock the same file with another fd > again. All the lock and unlock operation should succeed. > > Now the child process does not actually unlock the file, so > the following lock fails. Fix this by allowing flock and OFD > lock go through the unlock routine, not skipping if the unlock > request comes from another process. > > Patch has been tested by LTP/xfstests on samba and Windows > server, v3.11, with or without cache=none mount option. Also tested with or without "nolease" mount option. No new issue shows. Thanks! > > [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock03.c > Signed-off-by: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com> > --- > fs/cifs/smb2file.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c > index afe1f03aabe3..eebfbf3a8c80 100644 > --- a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c > +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c > @@ -152,7 +152,12 @@ smb2_unlock_range(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile, struct file_lock *flock, > (li->offset + li->length)) > continue; > if (current->tgid != li->pid) > - continue; > + /* > + * flock and OFD lock are associated with an open > + * file description, not the process. > + */ > + if (!(flock->fl_flags & (FL_FLOCK | FL_OFDLCK))) > + continue; > if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) { > /* > * We can cache brlock requests - simply remove a lock > -- > 2.20.1 > >
ср, 26 февр. 2020 г. в 07:39, Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com>: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:30:01AM +0800, Murphy Zhou wrote: > > Since commit d0677992d2af ("cifs: add support for flock") added > > support for flock, LTP/flock03[1] testcase started to fail. > > > > This testcase is testing flock lock and unlock across fork. > > The parent locks file and starts the child process, in which > > it unlock the same fd and lock the same file with another fd > > again. All the lock and unlock operation should succeed. > > > > Now the child process does not actually unlock the file, so > > the following lock fails. Fix this by allowing flock and OFD > > lock go through the unlock routine, not skipping if the unlock > > request comes from another process. > > > > Patch has been tested by LTP/xfstests on samba and Windows > > server, v3.11, with or without cache=none mount option. > > Also tested with or without "nolease" mount option. No new > issue shows. > Great, thanks! -- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:39:41PM +0800, Murphy Zhou wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:30:01AM +0800, Murphy Zhou wrote: > > Since commit d0677992d2af ("cifs: add support for flock") added > > support for flock, LTP/flock03[1] testcase started to fail. Ping on this one? > > > > This testcase is testing flock lock and unlock across fork. > > The parent locks file and starts the child process, in which > > it unlock the same fd and lock the same file with another fd > > again. All the lock and unlock operation should succeed. > > > > Now the child process does not actually unlock the file, so > > the following lock fails. Fix this by allowing flock and OFD > > lock go through the unlock routine, not skipping if the unlock > > request comes from another process. > > > > Patch has been tested by LTP/xfstests on samba and Windows > > server, v3.11, with or without cache=none mount option. > > Also tested with or without "nolease" mount option. No new > issue shows. > > Thanks! > > > > [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock03.c > > Signed-off-by: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com> > > --- > > fs/cifs/smb2file.c | 7 ++++++- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c > > index afe1f03aabe3..eebfbf3a8c80 100644 > > --- a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c > > +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c > > @@ -152,7 +152,12 @@ smb2_unlock_range(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile, struct file_lock *flock, > > (li->offset + li->length)) > > continue; > > if (current->tgid != li->pid) > > - continue; > > + /* > > + * flock and OFD lock are associated with an open > > + * file description, not the process. > > + */ > > + if (!(flock->fl_flags & (FL_FLOCK | FL_OFDLCK))) > > + continue; > > if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) { > > /* > > * We can cache brlock requests - simply remove a lock > > -- > > 2.20.1 > > > > > > -- > Murphy
It looks that I forgot to ack the patch: Acked-by: Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov@microsoft.com> -- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky чт, 20 февр. 2020 г. в 18:30, Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com>: > > Since commit d0677992d2af ("cifs: add support for flock") added > support for flock, LTP/flock03[1] testcase started to fail. > > This testcase is testing flock lock and unlock across fork. > The parent locks file and starts the child process, in which > it unlock the same fd and lock the same file with another fd > again. All the lock and unlock operation should succeed. > > Now the child process does not actually unlock the file, so > the following lock fails. Fix this by allowing flock and OFD > lock go through the unlock routine, not skipping if the unlock > request comes from another process. > > Patch has been tested by LTP/xfstests on samba and Windows > server, v3.11, with or without cache=none mount option. > > [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock03.c > Signed-off-by: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com> > --- > fs/cifs/smb2file.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c > index afe1f03aabe3..eebfbf3a8c80 100644 > --- a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c > +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c > @@ -152,7 +152,12 @@ smb2_unlock_range(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile, struct file_lock *flock, > (li->offset + li->length)) > continue; > if (current->tgid != li->pid) > - continue; > + /* > + * flock and OFD lock are associated with an open > + * file description, not the process. > + */ > + if (!(flock->fl_flags & (FL_FLOCK | FL_OFDLCK))) > + continue; > if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) { > /* > * We can cache brlock requests - simply remove a lock > -- > 2.20.1 > >
tentatively merged into cifs-2.6.git for-next pending more testing On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 8:30 PM Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com> wrote: > > Since commit d0677992d2af ("cifs: add support for flock") added > support for flock, LTP/flock03[1] testcase started to fail. > > This testcase is testing flock lock and unlock across fork. > The parent locks file and starts the child process, in which > it unlock the same fd and lock the same file with another fd > again. All the lock and unlock operation should succeed. > > Now the child process does not actually unlock the file, so > the following lock fails. Fix this by allowing flock and OFD > lock go through the unlock routine, not skipping if the unlock > request comes from another process. > > Patch has been tested by LTP/xfstests on samba and Windows > server, v3.11, with or without cache=none mount option. > > [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock03.c > Signed-off-by: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com> > --- > fs/cifs/smb2file.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c > index afe1f03aabe3..eebfbf3a8c80 100644 > --- a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c > +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c > @@ -152,7 +152,12 @@ smb2_unlock_range(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile, struct file_lock *flock, > (li->offset + li->length)) > continue; > if (current->tgid != li->pid) > - continue; > + /* > + * flock and OFD lock are associated with an open > + * file description, not the process. > + */ > + if (!(flock->fl_flags & (FL_FLOCK | FL_OFDLCK))) > + continue; > if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) { > /* > * We can cache brlock requests - simply remove a lock > -- > 2.20.1 > >
diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c index afe1f03aabe3..eebfbf3a8c80 100644 --- a/fs/cifs/smb2file.c +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2file.c @@ -152,7 +152,12 @@ smb2_unlock_range(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile, struct file_lock *flock, (li->offset + li->length)) continue; if (current->tgid != li->pid) - continue; + /* + * flock and OFD lock are associated with an open + * file description, not the process. + */ + if (!(flock->fl_flags & (FL_FLOCK | FL_OFDLCK))) + continue; if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) { /* * We can cache brlock requests - simply remove a lock
Since commit d0677992d2af ("cifs: add support for flock") added support for flock, LTP/flock03[1] testcase started to fail. This testcase is testing flock lock and unlock across fork. The parent locks file and starts the child process, in which it unlock the same fd and lock the same file with another fd again. All the lock and unlock operation should succeed. Now the child process does not actually unlock the file, so the following lock fails. Fix this by allowing flock and OFD lock go through the unlock routine, not skipping if the unlock request comes from another process. Patch has been tested by LTP/xfstests on samba and Windows server, v3.11, with or without cache=none mount option. [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock03.c Signed-off-by: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@gmail.com> --- fs/cifs/smb2file.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)