Re: [patch] POSIX advisory mode lock panic fix by Dfly

["Devon H. O'Dell" <dodell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :>       integrated into the lockf structure allocation and deallocation
> :>       functions).
> :
> :Well, the number of locks needs to be kept track of on a per-process 
> :level as well for possible setuid() transfers. I think that passing a 
> :struct lockf * is a good idea; but it's not moot unless the process 
> :count is upgraded in the lf_alloc() instead of in chgposixlockcnt() (but 
> :I don't think that's very clean, is it?)
>
>     Sometimes these things just fall into place, other times they are
>     predetermined to be ugly no matter what you do :-).
>
>     If its going to be ugly it is best to put the ugliness all in one place.
>     So, for example, it is generally better to pass the governing structure 
>     to a wrapper procedure with ugly insides then it is to strew 'pp' all over
>     the source file.  Sometimes special cases prevent it from working out,
>     and sometimes things just fall into place and you get an elegant solution.
>
> 						-Matt

Yeah, and if you strew pp all over the place, it smells bad, too.

lf_alloc() is going to have to be ugly, just because it needs to know 
about the process to pass to incposixlockcnt().

Thanks for this info, I'll have a modified sys patch soon.

--Devon