This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Fix Linux fcntl OFD locks for non-LFS architectures (BZ#20251)
- From: Samuel Thibault <samuel dot thibault at gnu dot org>
- To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 19:53:50 +0100
- Subject: Re: Fix Linux fcntl OFD locks for non-LFS architectures (BZ#20251)
- References: <20181115012457.ssscem7zfceifykq@function> <20181115012939.il77yr2gxkxyswu6@function> <20181115013648.xcxewlolirj35o3d@function> <901f8a33-88d5-73f4-90f4-ea0c1ee9b3a5@linaro.org>
Adhemerval Zanella, le jeu. 15 nov. 2018 09:45:15 -0800, a ecrit:
> On 14/11/2018 17:36, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Samuel Thibault, le jeu. 15 nov. 2018 02:29:39 +0100, a ecrit:
> >> Samuel Thibault, le jeu. 15 nov. 2018 02:24:57 +0100, a ecrit:
> >>> In login/utmp_file.c you have replaced calling __fcntl_nocancel by
> >>> __fcntl64_nocancel, but shouldn't struct flock be replaced by struct
> >>> flock64 too?
> >>
> >> Ah, no, applications *have* to use F_SETLK64 to use struct flock64, is
> >> that it?
> >
> > Mmm, no, as I read the Linux implementation, when calling fcntl(), one
> > has to use F_SETLK64 to be able to use struct flock64, but when calling
> > fcntl64(), struct flock64 is always used,a and thus login/utmp_file.c
> > should really be useing struct flock64?
>
> At least for Linux this specific usage is supported. For 32-bit architectures,
> Linux fcntl64 does:
>
> 471 #if BITS_PER_LONG == 32
> 472 SYSCALL_DEFINE3(fcntl64, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd,
> 473 unsigned long, arg)
> 474 {
> [...]
> 492 switch (cmd) {
> [...]
> 511 default:
> 512 err = do_fcntl(fd, cmd, arg, f.file);
> 513 break;
> 514 }
Where is this code? I don't find it in the glibc repository, neither on
master nor on release/2.28/master.
> The issue that BZ#20251 is using this same scenario but with
> Linux-specific OFD locks (which is not supported).
>
> However I agree that this is confusing and I think it would be an
> improvement if we explicit avoid use non-LFS interfaces within glibc.
It doesn't seem only confusing to me, but actually bogus. AIUI, on i386
either:
- __USE_FILE_OFFSET64 is defined, struct flock is made 64bits, F_*LK are
#defined to the F_*LK64 64bit variants, fcntl() thus uses 64bit values.
- __USE_LARGEFILE64 is defined, struct flock is kept 32bits, struct
flock64 is available as 64bit variant which can be used either with
fcntl() with F_*LK64 variants, or with fcntl64.
- none of the above is defined, struct flock is kept 32bits, flock64 is
not available.
AFAICT (just tested now), login/utmp_file.c is built with
__USE_LARGEFILE64, not __USE_FILE_OFFSET64, and thus passing a struct
flock (thus 32bit) to fcntl64 is bogus, since fcntl64 will consider it
64bits. I made sure with a
_Static_assert(sizeof(struct flock) == sizeof(struct flock64), "oops");
inside the LOCK_FILE macro itself, and it fails on i386, so I'm really
tempted to make the fl there an flock64 not to fix confusion, but to
actually fix a bug.
Samuel