From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] fcntl.2: F_OFD_XXX needs flock64
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:41:50 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1471390910.2680.20.camel@poochiereds.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2c79788f-c74a-49e8-fa81-0e9cf4e2d75f@gmail.com>
On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 08:04 +1200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> [Jeff, can you comment?]
>
> Hi Cyril,
>
> On 08/16/2016 11:55 PM, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> >
> > If we pass struct flock to the F_OFD_XXX fcntl() it will fail with
> > EINVAL with a 32bit binary. That is because glibc uses fcntl64() by
> > default but the struct flock uses 32bit off_t for 32bit binaries (unless
> > _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64) and kernel always expect flock64 for F_OFD_XXX in
> > fcntl64(). Hence kernel will read some garbage that is a few bytes after
> > the 32bit flock structure in this case which will likely end up with the
> > syscall returning EINVAL.
>
> Okay -- I confirm the problem you report. I'm just not sure that the
> patch below is the best fix. So, to summarize:
>
> * On 64-bit, flock{} and flock64{} are the same structure.
> * On 32-bit, flock{} and flock64{} are different.
> * On 32-bit, F_OFD operations require flock64{}, but the traditional
> F_* lock operations do not.
> * To use flock64{} with F_OFD operations, we can either explicitly use
> flock64{} or we can compile with -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
>
> One solution would be your patch below, but it feels wrong: on 64-bit
> flock{} suffices, and is consistent with the traditional F_* operations.
> An alternative would be a note in the man page that says something along
> the lines that on 32-bit, one must compile with -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
> when using the F_OFD operations.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael
>
This sounds like a regular old bug, rather than a documentation issue.
The way the kernel works is that if you call fcntl(), then you need to
pass in a struct flock. If you call fcntl64() then you need to pass in
a struct flock64. Of course this is only on 32-bit arches. On 64-bit,
it's there is no flock64 or fcntl64.
Typically, glibc papers over all of this by deciding which syscall it's
going to use based on -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS. IIRC, it basically redefines
the fields in struct flock to be like the one in struct flock64, so you
shouldn't need to do anything special here.
It sounds here like you got a mismatch, somehow and were calling
fcntl64() with the smaller struct flock? Or was it vice versa?
What would be ideal would be a small reproducer program, and
instructions on how to build it. With that we should be able to nail
down why this is happening.
Also, what arch are you using here?
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
> > > > CC: Yuriy Kolerov <Yuriy.Kolerov@synopsys.com>
> > ---
> > man2/fcntl.2 | 8 ++++----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/man2/fcntl.2 b/man2/fcntl.2
> > index f0c1acf..4606709 100644
> > --- a/man2/fcntl.2
> > +++ b/man2/fcntl.2
> > @@ -533,7 +533,7 @@ As with traditional advisory locks, the third argument to
> > .BR fcntl (),
> > .IR lock ,
> > is a pointer to an
> > -.IR flock
> > +.IR flock64
> > structure.
> > By contrast with traditional record locks, the
> > .I l_pid
> > @@ -543,7 +543,7 @@ when using the commands described below.
> > The commands for working with open file description locks are analogous
> > to those used with traditional locks:
> > .TP
> > -.BR F_OFD_SETLK " (\fIstruct flock *\fP)"
> > +.BR F_OFD_SETLK " (\fIstruct flock64 *\fP)"
> > Acquire an open file description lock (when
> > .I l_type
> > is
> > @@ -564,7 +564,7 @@ this call returns \-1 and sets
> > to
> > .BR EAGAIN .
> > .TP
> > -.BR F_OFD_SETLKW " (\fIstruct flock *\fP)"
> > +.BR F_OFD_SETLKW " (\fIstruct flock64 *\fP)"
> > As for
> > .BR F_OFD_SETLK ,
> > but if a conflicting lock is held on the file, then wait for that lock to be
> > @@ -578,7 +578,7 @@ set to
> > see
> > .BR signal (7)).
> > .TP
> > -.BR F_OFD_GETLK " (\fIstruct flock *\fP)"
> > +.BR F_OFD_GETLK " (\fIstruct flock64 *\fP)"
> > On input to this call,
> > .I lock
> > describes an open file description lock we would like to place on the file.
> >
>
>
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-16 23:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-16 11:55 [LTP] [PATCH] fcntl.2: F_OFD_XXX needs flock64 Cyril Hrubis
2016-08-16 14:34 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-08-16 20:04 ` Michael Kerrisk
2016-08-16 23:41 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2016-08-17 1:08 ` Michael Kerrisk
2016-08-17 8:10 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-08-17 11:44 ` Jeff Layton
2016-08-17 11:53 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-08-17 13:14 ` Jeff Layton
2016-08-17 13:19 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-08-17 13:34 ` Jeff Layton
2016-08-17 13:34 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-08-17 19:44 ` Michael Kerrisk
2016-08-17 7:44 ` Cyril Hrubis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1471390910.2680.20.camel@poochiereds.net \
--to=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox