Adding upstream version 6.1.76.upstream/6.1.76

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 65 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/locks.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/locks.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..26429317d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/locks.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+==========================
+File Locking Release Notes
+==========================
+
+		Andy Walker <andy@lysaker.kvaerner.no>
+
+			    12 May 1997
+
+
+1. What's New?
+==============
+
+1.1 Broken Flock Emulation
+--------------------------
+
+The old flock(2) emulation in the kernel was swapped for proper BSD
+compatible flock(2) support in the 1.3.x series of kernels. With the
+release of the 2.1.x kernel series, support for the old emulation has
+been totally removed, so that we don't need to carry this baggage
+forever.
+
+This should not cause problems for anybody, since everybody using a
+2.1.x kernel should have updated their C library to a suitable version
+anyway (see the file "Documentation/process/changes.rst".)
+
+1.2 Allow Mixed Locks Again
+---------------------------
+
+1.2.1 Typical Problems - Sendmail
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+Because sendmail was unable to use the old flock() emulation, many sendmail
+installations use fcntl() instead of flock(). This is true of Slackware 3.0
+for example. This gave rise to some other subtle problems if sendmail was
+configured to rebuild the alias file. Sendmail tried to lock the aliases.dir
+file with fcntl() at the same time as the GDBM routines tried to lock this
+file with flock(). With pre 1.3.96 kernels this could result in deadlocks that,
+over time, or under a very heavy mail load, would eventually cause the kernel
+to lock solid with deadlocked processes.
+
+
+1.2.2 The Solution
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+The solution I have chosen, after much experimentation and discussion,
+is to make flock() and fcntl() locks oblivious to each other. Both can
+exists, and neither will have any effect on the other.
+
+I wanted the two lock styles to be cooperative, but there were so many
+race and deadlock conditions that the current solution was the only
+practical one. It puts us in the same position as, for example, SunOS
+4.1.x and several other commercial Unices. The only OS's that support
+cooperative flock()/fcntl() are those that emulate flock() using
+fcntl(), with all the problems that implies.
+
+
+1.3 Mandatory Locking As A Mount Option
+---------------------------------------
+
+Mandatory locking was prior to this release a general configuration option
+that was valid for all mounted filesystems.  This had a number of inherent
+dangers, not the least of which was the ability to freeze an NFS server by
+asking it to read a file for which a mandatory lock existed.
+
+Such option was dropped in Kernel v5.14.