| Message ID | 20221118234357.243926-1-ak@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add process name to locks warning | expand |
On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:43 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > It's fairly useless to complain about using an obsolete feature without > telling the user which process used it. My Fedora desktop randomly drops > this message, but I would really need this patch to figure out what > triggers is. > Interesting. The only program I know of that tried to use these was samba, but we patched that out a few years ago (about the time this patch went in). Are you running an older version of samba? > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> > --- > fs/locks.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c > index 607f94a0e789..2e45232dbeb1 100644 > --- a/fs/locks.c > +++ b/fs/locks.c > @@ -2096,7 +2096,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd) > * throw a warning to let people know that they don't actually work. > */ > if (cmd & LOCK_MAND) { > - pr_warn_once("Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n"); > + pr_warn_once("%s: Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n", current->comm); > return 0; > } > Looks reasonable. Would it help to print the pid or tgid as well?
On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 21:06 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:43 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > > It's fairly useless to complain about using an obsolete feature without > > telling the user which process used it. My Fedora desktop randomly drops > > this message, but I would really need this patch to figure out what > > triggers is. > > > > Interesting. The only program I know of that tried to use these was > samba, but we patched that out a few years ago (about the time this > patch went in). Are you running an older version of samba? > > > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > fs/locks.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c > > index 607f94a0e789..2e45232dbeb1 100644 > > --- a/fs/locks.c > > +++ b/fs/locks.c > > @@ -2096,7 +2096,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd) > > * throw a warning to let people know that they don't actually work. > > */ > > if (cmd & LOCK_MAND) { > > - pr_warn_once("Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n"); > > + pr_warn_once("%s: Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n", current->comm); > > return 0; > > } > > > > Looks reasonable. Would it help to print the pid or tgid as well? Merged into my locks-next branch, along with a small change to print current->pid in addition to current->comm. This should make v6.2. Thanks!
On 11/18/2022 6:06 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:43 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: >> It's fairly useless to complain about using an obsolete feature without >> telling the user which process used it. My Fedora desktop randomly drops >> this message, but I would really need this patch to figure out what >> triggers is. >> > Interesting. The only program I know of that tried to use these was > samba, but we patched that out a few years ago (about the time this > patch went in). Are you running an older version of samba? Yes it's running samba, whatever is in Fedora 35. Don't know if that counts as an older version. > >> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> >> --- >> fs/locks.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c >> index 607f94a0e789..2e45232dbeb1 100644 >> --- a/fs/locks.c >> +++ b/fs/locks.c >> @@ -2096,7 +2096,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd) >> * throw a warning to let people know that they don't actually work. >> */ >> if (cmd & LOCK_MAND) { >> - pr_warn_once("Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n"); >> + pr_warn_once("%s: Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n", current->comm); >> return 0; >> } >> > Looks reasonable. Would it help to print the pid or tgid as well? It wouldn't help me because at that time I see it it's likely long gone. Just need the name.
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c index 607f94a0e789..2e45232dbeb1 100644 --- a/fs/locks.c +++ b/fs/locks.c @@ -2096,7 +2096,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd) * throw a warning to let people know that they don't actually work. */ if (cmd & LOCK_MAND) { - pr_warn_once("Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n"); + pr_warn_once("%s: Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n", current->comm); return 0; }
It's fairly useless to complain about using an obsolete feature without telling the user which process used it. My Fedora desktop randomly drops this message, but I would really need this patch to figure out what triggers is. Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> --- fs/locks.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)