Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 11:08:47 +0100 From: Peter Blok <pblok@bsd4all.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: flock on directory Message-ID: <F6940FC9-3B3E-40D0-8280-D341FAE41DF0@bsd4all.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
I=E2=80=99m trying to run diskless. Both server and client are recent =
14-stable. When running diskless NFSv3 locking doesn=E2=80=99t work, =
although everything is setup correctly. ( Will investigate later ). If I =
mount with nolockd everything looks ok - no messages.
I fixed NFSv4 as a client and it works, but atrun complains about not =
being able to flock with LOCK_EX /var/at/jobs, returning EINVAL =
According to the manpage this is correct, because the object is not a =
file.
if ((spool =3D opendir(".")) =3D=3D NULL)
perr("cannot read %s", ATJOB_DIR);
=20
if (flock(dirfd(spool), LOCK_EX) =3D=3D -1)
perr("cannot lock %s", ATJOB_DIR);
On a zfs or ufs directory the flock works without returning EINVAL, =
which is not in line with the manpage.
What would be the approriate thing to change? Should NFS also allow a =
flock on a directory, or should we always return EINVAL on any directory =
on any file-system? The latter would probably cause some churn
Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F6940FC9-3B3E-40D0-8280-D341FAE41DF0>