X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,TW_SV
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <502D4F2F.5080306@etr-usa.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:51:11 -0600
From: Warren Young <warren AT etr-usa DOT com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Options for getting mandatory locking in cygwin1.dll (was: Promote sqlite 3.7.13-1 from test status?)
References: <announce DOT 5029275C DOT 4040009 AT etr-usa DOT com> <502C0B7D DOT 10909 AT etr-usa DOT com> <loom DOT 20120816T092134-266 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20120816085016 DOT GB5536 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <502CCBB1 DOT 2070600 AT etr-usa DOT com> <20120816105507 DOT GD17546 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <502CE120 DOT 4050900 AT etr-usa DOT com> <20120816122654 DOT GG17546 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To: <20120816122654.GG17546@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 8/16/2012 6:26 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 16 06:01, Warren Young wrote:
>> Advisory locking only works when all players cooperate.  We can't
>> assume that on Windows, unless we set up an insular Cygwin ghetto.
>
> So, are you saying that Cygwin should use mandatory file locking?

Of course not.  That would be a disaster.

> You are aware that there's no chance at all to implement the UNIX
> locking API calls correctly this way since Windows locking has nothing
> in common with UNIX locking except for the word "locking".

Not even on a per-process basis (cygwin_set_mandatory_locking(1)), in 
conjunction with fcntl(F_SETLK)?  That's how SQLite's unixFileLock() 
function is implemented.

That is, this proposal would put the DLL in a mode where it called 
LockFileEx() to establish the reader/writer lock byte ranges instead of 
using its private advisory locking scheme.

Alternately, Cygwin could follow Linux and implement 'mount -o mand'. 
You could get mandatory locking on just your svn checkout tree this way, 
for example.  It would apply to all Cygwin programs, not just 
svn/SQLite, but it shouldn't be any more problematic than normal day to 
day Windows use.  Cygwin programs not run within that mount wouldn't be 
affected.

I'm aware that fcntl(F_SETLK) isn't thread-safe[1] but we're arguing "if 
it's good enough for Unix, it's good enough for Cygwin" here, aren't we? 
  The other objection in reference [1] is that it doesn't work with NFS, 
which doesn't matter to us here, I think.

If neither of those proposals will work, I think we'll have no choice 
but to continue to try and chase a SQLite specific solution.  You can't 
fix it on the Windows native side of things.  I doubt you can fix it in 
Subversion, and even if you could, that's no better than fixing it in 
SQLite.  Worse, actually, because then you've got a fix that affects 
only one program, not all SQLite dependents.


[1] http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/locking.html

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple