[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fuse-devel
Subject:    Re: [fuse-devel] [2.8.x] ulockmgr_server issue / fusexmp_fh example
From:       Stef Bon <stefbon () gmail ! com>
Date:       2011-07-04 20:49:28
Message-ID: CANXojczxczwU3f3kaD3bTgKike4jeymnW5iTmAwMpCTQezkzgg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

>>
>> Yep, ulockmgr_server should be the owner.
>
> I wonder: if FUSE is handling GETLK would it be possible to set l_pid to
> the value that fuse_get_context()->pid had back when the (successful)
> call to SETLK(W) took place?  Unless the kernel prevents that it would
> allow pretending that the actual lock requestee is the owner, not
> ulockmgr_server.  Do you see problems with this approach?  If so maybe
> it could be made a mount parameter switch?
>
> Best,
>

Good thought. But this pretending is good enough? I do not know.
Internally the owner is different than FUSE will report.

Stef

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security 
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes 
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2
_______________________________________________
fuse-devel mailing list
fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fuse-devel

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]