Bug 15441 - NFS locking does not invoke the filesystem lock operation
NFS locking does not invoke the filesystem lock operation
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: kernel (Show other bugs)
8.0
i386 Linux
high Severity high
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Arjan van de Ven
Brian Brock
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2000-08-04 16:16 EDT by Brian P. Dixon
Modified: 2008-08-01 12:22 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-09-30 11:38:48 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Brian P. Dixon 2000-08-04 16:16:32 EDT
NFS locking routines (nlmsvc_lock and others in svclock.c) go directly
to the default kernel operations (eg., posix_lock_file) and do not invoke
any filesystem lock operation that may have been provided.  They SHOULD
invoke the lock file_operation (if one exists for the filesystem)
similarly to the non-NFS fcntl_setlk which does the following:
  
   if (filp->f_op->lock != NULL) {
       error = filp->f_op->lock(filp, cmd, &file_lock); 
  
Without this, a filesystem that needs to provide the lock operation has no
way to achieve proper locking via nfs clients.
Comment 1 Cristian Gafton 2000-08-08 22:35:30 EDT
assigned to johnsonm
Comment 2 Michael K. Johnson 2000-08-31 18:05:35 EDT
Alan, you wanted lots of testing on this one; how can we get this?
Comment 3 Mike Vaillancourt 2001-02-16 18:53:41 EST
Has there been any update on this bug?
Comment 4 Alan Cox 2001-02-21 16:35:48 EST
I am happy that this is a real bug. No existing code Red Hat ship is effected by
it but a hypothetical
third party file system (I suspect a not so hypothetical AFS too) would be
affected by this and it
is a reasonable change.

I thought IBM provided 2.4.x patches for this. If they have a 2.4 set for that
bug can they send me a copy and I'll add it to  the 2.4ac base 
Comment 5 Yil-Kyu Kang 2001-02-27 10:56:47 EST
Can I please be updated on the latest for this bug? I was informed that IBM sent
you this patch on 2/23/01. Will this be resolved in our next release? Thanks,
Kyu
Comment 6 Alan Cox 2001-02-27 11:02:06 EST
Its in the current -ac tree for testing. I had to fix some formatting mess and
bits they didnt do but
it seems ok. For Linus tree IBM should discuss the -ac changes with Matthew
Wilcox
<matthew@wil.cx> who is the locking maintainer. He is aware of the changes

Alan
Comment 7 Yil-Kyu Kang 2001-03-09 12:53:53 EST
Thank you for the update Alan. Will patch be a part of our next release?
Comment 8 Michael K. Johnson 2001-03-12 23:22:28 EST
Kyu, please send linux-2.4.2-lockd.patch to IBM so they can look at
it.
Comment 9 Yil-Kyu Kang 2001-03-20 08:40:22 EST
I have sent and IBM reviewed the lockd.patch. They informed me that  everything
looks great.
Comment 10 Arjan van de Ven 2001-03-20 08:49:09 EST
Great! I will close this bug now as fixed, if something comes up, feel free
to reopen it again.
Comment 11 IBM Bug Proxy 2001-11-02 12:32:46 EST
This patch (svclock.c) apparently did not make it into a Linus kernel.org
release although it was accepted into 2.2.4-ac23 - why did this happen?
Comment 12 Alan Cox 2001-11-02 12:42:28 EST
I assume because Linus didn't decide to adopt it. You want to discuss that with
Linus.
Comment 13 IBM Bug Proxy 2001-11-07 17:01:49 EST
Before we discuss this with Linus, is there any indication as to why it
was not accepted.
Comment 14 Alan Cox 2001-11-08 06:57:04 EST
I dont have any, its been a long time
Comment 15 Arjan van de Ven 2001-11-13 11:06:10 EST
Is this the hooks for IBM's binary only filesystem ?
Comment 16 Alan Cox 2001-11-13 11:54:23 EST
Well it matters for AFS (which is now not binary only anyway) but its also a
genuine 100% kosher bug.
Comment 17 IBM Bug Proxy 2002-01-08 14:46:11 EST
What would be the most expeditious approach get this patch accepted into
the Linus kernel?
Comment 18 Arjan van de Ven 2002-01-08 14:47:56 EST
How about sending it to Linus and Marcelo with explenation ?
Comment 19 Bugzilla owner 2004-09-30 11:38:48 EDT
Thanks for the bug report. However, Red Hat no longer maintains this version of
the product. Please upgrade to the latest version and open a new bug if the problem
persists.

The Fedora Legacy project (http://fedoralegacy.org/) maintains some older releases, 
and if you believe this bug is interesting to them, please report the problem in
the bug tracker at: http://bugzilla.fedora.us/

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.