Neil Brown suggested potentially overloading the l_pid value as a "lock
context" field for file-private locks. While I don't think we will
probably want to do that here, it's probably a good idea to ensure that
in the future we could extend this API without breaking existing
callers.
Typically the l_pid value is ignored for incoming struct flock
arguments, serving mainly as a place to return the pid of the owner if
there is a conflicting lock. For file-private locks, require that it
currently be set to 0 and return EINVAL if it isn't. If we eventually
want to make a non-zero l_pid mean something, then this will help ensure
that we don't break legacy programs that are using file-private locks.
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
goto out;
if (cmd == F_GETLKP) {
+ error = -EINVAL;
+ if (flock.l_pid != 0)
+ goto out;
+
cmd = F_GETLK;
file_lock.fl_flags |= FL_FILE_PVT;
file_lock.fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)filp;
*/
switch (cmd) {
case F_SETLKP:
+ error = -EINVAL;
+ if (flock.l_pid != 0)
+ goto out;
+
cmd = F_SETLK;
file_lock->fl_flags |= FL_FILE_PVT;
file_lock->fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)filp;
break;
case F_SETLKPW:
+ error = -EINVAL;
+ if (flock.l_pid != 0)
+ goto out;
+
cmd = F_SETLKW;
file_lock->fl_flags |= FL_FILE_PVT;
file_lock->fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)filp;
goto out;
if (cmd == F_GETLKP) {
+ error = -EINVAL;
+ if (flock.l_pid != 0)
+ goto out;
+
cmd = F_GETLK64;
file_lock.fl_flags |= FL_FILE_PVT;
file_lock.fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)filp;
*/
switch (cmd) {
case F_SETLKP:
+ error = -EINVAL;
+ if (flock.l_pid != 0)
+ goto out;
+
cmd = F_SETLK64;
file_lock->fl_flags |= FL_FILE_PVT;
file_lock->fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)filp;
break;
case F_SETLKPW:
+ error = -EINVAL;
+ if (flock.l_pid != 0)
+ goto out;
+
cmd = F_SETLKW64;
file_lock->fl_flags |= FL_FILE_PVT;
file_lock->fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)filp;