2
0
mirror of https://github.com/edk2-porting/linux-next.git synced 2024-12-20 11:13:58 +08:00
Commit Graph

157 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Dipankar Sarma
4fb3a53860 [PATCH] files: fix preemption issues
With the new fdtable locking rules, you have to protect fdtable with either
->file_lock or rcu_read_lock/unlock().  There are some places where we
aren't doing either.  This patch fixes those places.

Signed-off-by: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-17 11:50:02 -07:00
Dipankar Sarma
badf16621c [PATCH] files: break up files struct
In order for the RCU to work, the file table array, sets and their sizes must
be updated atomically.  Instead of ensuring this through too many memory
barriers, we put the arrays and their sizes in a separate structure.  This
patch takes the first step of putting the file table elements in a separate
structure fdtable that is embedded withing files_struct.  It also changes all
the users to refer to the file table using files_fdtable() macro.  Subsequent
applciation of RCU becomes easier after this.

Signed-off-by: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>
Signed-Off-By: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-09 13:57:55 -07:00
Peter Staubach
c293621bbf [PATCH] stale POSIX lock handling
I believe that there is a problem with the handling of POSIX locks, which
the attached patch should address.

The problem appears to be a race between fcntl(2) and close(2).  A
multithreaded application could close a file descriptor at the same time as
it is trying to acquire a lock using the same file descriptor.  I would
suggest that that multithreaded application is not providing the proper
synchronization for itself, but the OS should still behave correctly.

SUS3 (Single UNIX Specification Version 3, read: POSIX) indicates that when
a file descriptor is closed, that all POSIX locks on the file, owned by the
process which closed the file descriptor, should be released.

The trick here is when those locks are released.  The current code releases
all locks which exist when close is processing, but any locks in progress
are handled when the last reference to the open file is released.

There are three cases to consider.

One is the simple case, a multithreaded (mt) process has a file open and
races to close it and acquire a lock on it.  In this case, the close will
release one reference to the open file and when the fcntl is done, it will
release the other reference.  For this situation, no locks should exist on
the file when both the close and fcntl operations are done.  The current
system will handle this case because the last reference to the open file is
being released.

The second case is when the mt process has dup(2)'d the file descriptor.
The close will release one reference to the file and the fcntl, when done,
will release another, but there will still be at least one more reference
to the open file.  One could argue that the existence of a lock on the file
after the close has completed is okay, because it was acquired after the
close operation and there is still a way for the application to release the
lock on the file, using an existing file descriptor.

The third case is when the mt process has forked, after opening the file
and either before or after becoming an mt process.  In this case, each
process would hold a reference to the open file.  For each process, this
degenerates to first case above.  However, the lock continues to exist
until both processes have released their references to the open file.  This
lock could block other lock requests.

The changes to release the lock when the last reference to the open file
aren't quite right because they would allow the lock to exist as long as
there was a reference to the open file.  This is too long.

The new proposed solution is to add support in the fcntl code path to
detect a race with close and then to release the lock which was just
acquired when such as race is detected.  This causes locks to be released
in a timely fashion and for the system to conform to the POSIX semantic
specification.

This was tested by instrumenting a kernel to detect the handling locks and
then running a program which generates case #3 above.  A dangling lock
could be reliably generated.  When the changes to detect the close/fcntl
race were added, a dangling lock could no longer be generated.

Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-07-27 16:26:06 -07:00
KAMBAROV, ZAUR
7eaae2828d [PATCH] coverity: fs/locks.c flp null check
We're dereferencing `flp' and then we're testing it for NULLness.

Either the compiler accidentally saved us or the existing null-pointer checdk
is redundant.

This defect was found automatically by Coverity Prevent, a static analysis tool.

Signed-off-by: Zaur Kambarov <zkambarov@coverity.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-07-07 18:23:47 -07:00
Trond Myklebust
80fec4c62e [PATCH] VFS: Ensure that all the on-stack struct file_lock call fl_release_private
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
2005-06-22 16:07:40 -04:00
Adrian Bunk
75c96f8584 [PATCH] make some things static
This patch makes some needlessly global identifiers static.

Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Acked-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-05-05 16:36:47 -07:00
Linus Torvalds
1da177e4c3 Linux-2.6.12-rc2
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.

Let it rip!
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00