DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 delorie.com 49HGdP7G539819 Authentication-Results: delorie.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=cygwin.com header.i=@cygwin.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=odND6PEy X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5E0C23858414 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1729183163; bh=YcTegr5bUx0ki7hvvfWLAYzRxN7W3phhiuYV6+11VMw=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=odND6PEy2QP9G7DDzoWxlsdPj5fSD9EPYRL3FyF/H6GDbUQst+l99C8blBdyaEB3v Z5jrEDljdo7JTHPyDC+tIcLKkcvAmOQNkwEx7Pp+a/VgDqUk5PsPL3KRxaIADQC2VE 2pXWBTSYsxlknRhs3OE24u19xkLorSUgi9XHXsig= X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org B236D3858D20 ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org B236D3858D20 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1729183106; cv=none; b=s9YLb3c8/wYSwJ1VLjeIzSzUFRfduMur2LW2Y2ygN3NdApVFuAfkW91ylxpBCIokf4OzBq4SZaF9uJ9YEX0l+Be4foMujoyTAbjy9ELgurCA4JKGoWAWicG5i5RVYloYUy4znr7SxEaa1OFUkrswA8lmAZE0e1DYzExIeJAXHbU= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1729183106; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DVV3kNM2OMC7Rg9Xd7Z+n59I+bhioO52mfAoUjhrLog=; h=Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version; b=OVe3pCC9jUMTMmPLe3FGkHz5IiM8+OFT179K0v8jbbnRhvMSf1uGDr/Y5B12Sx9jmve1NXfe2gmX8Q3KkLcxuGRuEl3ekwc5UFf9fVtZvSGrmSljIHgRqCxoUl9C+Cs4qnqp1pV82E2mbO3caaZENhm4hzYC7v8HnybhYaNHwuo= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Subject: Re: cygwin 3.5.4-1: lockf() aborts on overlap and does not fail on overflow To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20241017221957 DOT 11825d50d0c73b6a8560f17e AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:37:57 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20241017221957.11825d50d0c73b6a8560f17e@nifty.ne.jp> X-TOI-EXPURGATEID: 150726::1729183077-867FA4D7-8FD4190F/0/0 CLEAN NORMAL X-TOI-MSGID: 9629f64e-009b-4d9b-8b1f-5bc98aab43ea X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, BODY_8BITS, FREEMAIL_FROM, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Christian Franke via Cygwin Reply-To: Christian Franke Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: cygwin-bounces~archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id 49HGdP7G539819 Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote: > On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 15:36:02 +0200 > Christian Franke wrote: >> Two possibly independent bugs found by 'stress-ng --lockf ...': >> >> 1) lockf() may abort the process with api_fatal() if the new range >> partly overlaps with two ranges previously locked by the same process. >> >> 2) lockf() prints a warning on too many locks and returns success. It >> should not print a warning and fail with ENOLCK instead. >> >> Testcase for both: >> >> $ uname -r >> 3.5.4-1.x86_64 >> >> $ cat locktest.c >> #include >> #include >> #include >> >> static int lock_at(int fd, int off, int size) >> { >> if (lseek(fd, off, SEEK_SET) < 0) { >> perror("lseek"); return -1; >> } >> printf("\rlock %d-%d\n", off, off + size - 1); fflush(stdout); >> if (lockf(fd, F_LOCK, size) < 0) { >> perror("lock"); return -1; >> } >> return 0; >> } >> >> int main(int argc, char **argv) >> { >> int fd = open("locktest.tmp", O_RDWR|O_CREAT, 0666); >> if (fd < 0) { >> perror("open"); return 1; >> } >> >> if (argc == 1) { >> lock_at(fd, 0, 2); >> lock_at(fd, 2, 2); >> lock_at(fd, 1, 2); >> } >> else { >> for (int i = 0; i < 914; i++) >> if (lock_at(fd, i, 1)) >> return 1; >> } >> printf("\rdone\n"); >> return 0; >> } >> >> $ gcc -o locktest locktest.c >> >> $ ./locktest >> lock 0-1 >> lock 2-3 >> lock 1-2 >> 1 [main] locktest 44864 C:\cygwin64\tmp\locktest.exe: \ >> *** fatal error - NtCreateEvent(lock): 0xC0000035\ >> Hangup >> >> $ ./locktest loop >> lock 0-0 >> lock 1-1 >> lock 2-2 >> lock 3-3 >> ... >> lock 909-909 >> lock 910-910 >> lock 911-911 >> 0 [main] locktest 44865 inode_t::get_all_locks_list: \ >> Warning, can't handle more than 910 locks per file. >> lock 912-912 >> 727 [main] locktest 44865 inode_t::get_all_locks_list: \ >> Warning, can't handle more than 910 locks per file. >> lock 913-913 >> 1329 [main] locktest 44865 inode_t::get_all_locks_list: \ >> Warning, can't handle more than 910 locks per file. >> done >> >> There is possibly also an off-by-one error as the 912'th lockf() prints >> the first warning. > Thanks for the report. > I looked into the problems, and considered how to fix them. > > Could you please try the experimental patch attached? Works as expected with both 'locktest.exe' and 'stress-ng --lockf ...'. -- Thanks, Christian -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple