Re: [PATCH] locks: Ability to test for flock presence on fd

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:00:02 +0400
Pavel Emelyanov [off-list ref] wrote:

On 09/03/2014 07:55 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:38:24 +0400
Pavel Emelyanov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 09/02/2014 11:53 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:43:00 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:07:14PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:

quoted

On 09/02/2014 10:44 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:17:34PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:

quoted

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?

Two succeeding with LOCK_EX? AFAIU no. Am I missing something?

After a fork, two processes "own" the lock, right?:

	int main(int argc, char *argv[])
	{
		int fd, ret;
	
		fd = open(argv[1], O_RDWR);
		ret = flock(fd, LOCK_EX);
		if (ret)
			err(1, "flock");
		ret = fork();
		if (ret == -1)
			err(1, "flock");
		ret = flock(fd, LOCK_EX);
		if (ret)
			err(1, "flock");
		printf("%d got exclusive lock\n", getpid());
		sleep(1000);
	}

	$ touch TMP
	$ ./test TMP
	15882 got exclusive lock
	15883 got exclusive lock
	^C

I may misunderstand what you're doing.

Yeah, I don't understand either.

Flock locks are owned by the file description. The task that set
them is really irrelevant once they are set.

In the second flock() call there, you're just "modifying" an existing
lock (which turns out to be a noop here).

So, I don't quite understand the problem this solves. I get that you're
trying to reestablish the flock "state" after a checkpoint/restore
event, but why does it matter what task actually sets the locks as long
as they're set on the correct set of fds?

Sorry for confusion. Let me try to explain it more clearly.

First, what I meant talking about two LOCK_EX locks. Let's consider
this scenario:

pid = fork()
fd = open("/foo"); /* both parent and child has _different_ files */
if (pid == 0)
	/* child only */
	flock(fd, LOCK_EX);

at this point we have two different files pointing to "/foo" and 
only one of them has LOCK_EX on it. So if try to LOCK_EX it again, 
only at child's file this would succeed. So we can distinguish which
file is locked using this method.



Now, what problem this patch is trying to solve. It's quite tricky, 
but still. Let's imagine this scenario:

pid = fork();
fd = open("/foo"); /* yet again -- two different files */
if (pid == 0) {
	flock(fd, LOCK_SH);
	pid2 = fork();
	if (pid2 != 0)
		exit(0);
}

at this point we have:

task A -- the original task with file "/foo" opened
task B -- the first child, that exited at the end
task C -- the 2nd child, that "inherited" a file with the lock from B

Note, that file at A and file at C are two different files (struct 
file-s). And it's only the C's one that is locked.

The problem is that the /proc/locks shows the pid of B in this lock's
owner field. And we have no glue to find out who the real lock owner
is using the /proc/locks.

If we try to do the trickery like the one we did with LOCK_EX above,
this is what we would get.

If putting the 2nd LOCK_SH from A and from C, both attempts would succeed,
so this is not the solution.

If we try to LOCK_EX from A and C, only C would succeed, so this seem
to be the solution, but it's actually not. If there's another pair of 
A' and C' tasks holding the same "/foo" and having the LOCK_SH on C', 
this trick would stop working as none of the tasks would be able to 
put such lock on this file.


Thus, we need some way to find out whether a task X has a lock on file F.
This patch is one of the ways of doing this.

Hope this explanation is more clear.

Yes, thanks for clarifying.

I think we do need to be a bit careful when describing this though.

flock locks are not owned by tasks, but by the file description. So you
can't really tell whether task X has a lock on file F. Several tasks
could have a reference to file F and none of them has any more "claim"
to a lock on that file than another (at least from an API standpoint).

What your patch really does is tell you whether that file description
has a particular type of lock set on it.

Exactly.

quoted

Like Bruce, I think this looks fairly reasonable. That said, I had to
go through a bunch of API gyrations recently when getting the OFD lock
patches merged. It would be good to accompany your kernel patch with
glibc and manpage patches as well so we can make sure we have the
design settled before merging anything.

Sound OK?

Sure! But I think glibc and man-pages people would first want the
kernel part to get finished, as it's the part that mostly drives the
API. Since the linux-api@ is in Cc for this patch, what else would
you suggest me to do to keep the process moving?

Thanks,
Pavel

(cc'ing Michael Kerrisk, the manpages maintainer)

Michael had good suggestions for me when I was doing the OFD lock work.
I'd also consider cc'ing the glibc development list.

Cheers,
-- 
Jeff Layton [off-list ref]