Re: [PATCH] locks: Ability to test for flock presence on fd
From: J. Bruce Fields <hidden>
Date: 2014-09-02 18:44:56
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:17:34PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Hi, There's a problem with getting information about who has a flock on a specific file. The thing is that the "owner" field, that is shown in /proc/locks is the pid of the task who created the flock, not the one who _may_ hold it. If the flock creator shared the file with some other task (by forking or via scm_rights) and then died or closed the file, the information shown in proc no longer corresponds to the reality. This is critical for CRIU project, that tries to dump (and restore) the state of running tasks. For example, let's take two tasks A and B both opened a file "/foo", one of tasks places a LOCK_SH lock on the file and then "obfuscated" the owner field in /proc/locks. After this we have no ways to find out who is the lock holder. I'd like to note, that for LOCK_EX this problem is not critical -- we may go to both tasks and "ask" them to LOCK_EX the file again (we can do it in CRIU, I can tell more if required). The one who succeeds is the lock holder.
It could be both, actually, right?
With LOCK_SH this doesn't work. Trying to drop the lock doesn't work either, as flock(LOCK_UN) reports 0 in both cases: if the file is locked and if it is not. That said, I'd like to propose the LOCK_TEST flag to the flock call, that would check whether the lock of the given type (LOCK_SH or LOCK_EX) exists on the file we test. It's not the same as the existing in-kernel FL_ACCESS flag, which checks whether the new lock is possible, but it's a new FL_TEST flag, that checks whether the existing lock is there. What do you think?
I guess I can't see anything really wrong with it. It ignores the (poorly documented) LOCK_MAND case, but maybe that's OK. Would it make sense to return the lock type held instead, so you could do one flock(fd, LOCK_TEST) instead of flock(fd, LOCK_TEST|LOCK_SH) and flock(fd, LOCK_TEST|LOCK_EX) ? It'd be nice if we could fix /proc/locks. (You'd think I'd know better, but I've certainly been confused before when /proc/locks told me a lock was owned by a nonexistant PID.) But as long as multiple PIDs can "own" a flock and as long as there's no simple ID we can use to refer to a given struct file, I don't see an easy solution. --b.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <redacted> ---diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c index bb08857..50842bf 100644 --- a/fs/locks.c +++ b/fs/locks.c@@ -830,7 +830,7 @@ static int flock_lock_file(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *request) int found = 0; LIST_HEAD(dispose); - if (!(request->fl_flags & FL_ACCESS) && (request->fl_type != F_UNLCK)) { + if (!(request->fl_flags & (FL_ACCESS|FL_TEST)) && (request->fl_type != F_UNLCK)) { new_fl = locks_alloc_lock(); if (!new_fl) return -ENOMEM;@@ -850,11 +850,18 @@ static int flock_lock_file(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *request) continue; if (request->fl_type == fl->fl_type) goto out; + if (request->fl_flags & FL_TEST) + break; found = 1; locks_delete_lock(before, &dispose); break; } + if (request->fl_flags & FL_TEST) { + error = -ENOENT; + goto out; + } + if (request->fl_type == F_UNLCK) { if ((request->fl_flags & FL_EXISTS) && !found) error = -ENOENT;@@ -1852,15 +1859,16 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd) { struct fd f = fdget(fd); struct file_lock *lock; - int can_sleep, unlock; + int can_sleep, unlock, test; int error; error = -EBADF; if (!f.file) goto out; + test = (cmd & LOCK_TEST); can_sleep = !(cmd & LOCK_NB); - cmd &= ~LOCK_NB; + cmd &= ~(LOCK_NB|LOCK_TEST); unlock = (cmd == LOCK_UN); if (!unlock && !(cmd & LOCK_MAND) &&@@ -1872,6 +1880,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd) goto out_putf; if (can_sleep) lock->fl_flags |= FL_SLEEP; + if (test) + lock->fl_flags |= FL_TEST; error = security_file_lock(f.file, lock->fl_type); if (error)diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h index 9418772..9230e1d 100644 --- a/include/linux/fs.h +++ b/include/linux/fs.h@@ -844,6 +844,7 @@ static inline struct file *get_file(struct file *f) #define FL_DOWNGRADE_PENDING 256 /* Lease is being downgraded */ #define FL_UNLOCK_PENDING 512 /* Lease is being broken */ #define FL_OFDLCK 1024 /* lock is "owned" by struct file */ +#define FL_TEST 2048 /* * Special return value from posix_lock_file() and vfs_lock_file() fordiff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h index 7543b3e..7302e36 100644 --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h@@ -184,6 +184,7 @@ struct f_owner_ex { #define LOCK_READ 64 /* which allows concurrent read operations */ #define LOCK_WRITE 128 /* which allows concurrent write operations */ #define LOCK_RW 192 /* which allows concurrent read & write ops */ +#define LOCK_TEST 256 /* check for my SH|EX locks present */ #define F_LINUX_SPECIFIC_BASE 1024