From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CAC13E0226; Thu, 3 Sep 2026 19:06:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788462427; cv=none; b=m5V1J+QmKbbufPzQXxVEeVYL8CgJIlMdsGnemoAfQvuXX477AJlor/oGLR12n9AnFGB4TkXw2OcacGQYJZ+AepQNMpVpf3nPmI0Feb8gcNOSB0SyL1Jf7JX3x/mNtbnh7kmRIhTRcf1Ou0Q/PMhEDt4D5lPX6smH9JTu9CZW3cw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788462427; c=relaxed/simple; bh=onmgCsziHJQnvL+vxGNSDERIkdIcrfq+DGen62RdF0Q=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=decV08Lnk/9qB0MzlyRhhVTWJ8GH7eDUlHHHgbOdKKzAeV85OsjYVD3Q4tqFnh9t4SeW/BqX8Iu98l0k0PEqKccBEuVaYtxSOt/5/gIQ447bIxorXCqAe3pYJicIIDuf2qMIO3qjrmL8CQ7jb0GCaEivS/cupYBoXlH0YeYFWE4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=a1c04ctt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="a1c04ctt" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5981B1F000E9; Thu, 3 Sep 2026 19:06:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1788462412; bh=nbU7Tk7BzdPqNhg/v2vBK8mfcT5KOYleWhIUP9qBNQ0=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=a1c04ctt+/QJZ48FMMxJAanIzNfqNRnCsqpm7SQl/O7Y3ThFrK+FbfCjyHojj0AIS k2UOWbaufk0P9zh+3FyBSW9G4pxLOUUfdHEYoea7xBqNdR3yJCl3IyOctK7bYIe6qr 5M7/M6u2a3mI2GZJQQ7+c2b2RQN4Rw22ZcDsfibSQGtlgUfKmwd6Sv9MrusNzm9xEf hQQUw6HXWWoTi04VhE2buGIl72sgLZC/Am6TfywOdZ3Xfz2wEsd5zKOzC12n75QIoE nu2+FEcFiPIe5qyAJGZpIp4kocfO5u/o3wT5aaDAa8FNGHJbKJUPqsBN/0ktS3moaZ mGurChnXXVyJQ== Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs/locks: filter OFD locks from /proc/locks for foreign pid namespaces From: Jeff Layton To: Tao Cui , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cel@kernel.org Cc: alex.aring@gmail.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avagin@openvz.org, khorenko@virtuozzo.com, bcodding@redhat.com, Tao Cui Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2026 15:06:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5eb2ec0a-e6d6-4cae-89fd-6e68f75a64cc@linux.dev> References: <20260902125139.975253-1-cui.tao@linux.dev> <5eb2ec0a-e6d6-4cae-89fd-6e68f75a64cc@linux.dev> Autocrypt: addr=jlayton@kernel.org; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=mQINBE6V0TwBEADXhJg7s8wFDwBMEvn0qyhAnzFLTOCHooMZyx7XO7dAiIhDSi7G1NPxw n8jdFUQMCR/GlpozMFlSFiZXiObE7sef9rTtM68ukUyZM4pJ9l0KjQNgDJ6Fr342Htkjxu/kFV1Wv egyjnSsFt7EGoDjdKqr1TS9syJYFjagYtvWk/UfHlW09X+jOh4vYtfX7iYSx/NfqV3W1D7EDi0PqV T2h6v8i8YqsATFPwO4nuiTmL6I40ZofxVd+9wdRI4Db8yUNA4ZSP2nqLcLtFjClYRBoJvRWvsv4lm 0OX6MYPtv76hka8lW4mnRmZqqx3UtfHX/hF/zH24Gj7A6sYKYLCU3YrI2Ogiu7/ksKcl7goQjpvtV YrOOI5VGLHge0awt7bhMCTM9KAfPc+xL/ZxAMVWd3NCk5SamL2cE99UWgtvNOIYU8m6EjTLhsj8sn VluJH0/RcxEeFbnSaswVChNSGa7mXJrTR22lRL6ZPjdMgS2Km90haWPRc8Wolcz07Y2se0xpGVLEQ cDEsvv5IMmeMe1/qLZ6NaVkNuL3WOXvxaVT9USW1+/SGipO2IpKJjeDZfehlB/kpfF24+RrK+seQf CBYyUE8QJpvTZyfUHNYldXlrjO6n5MdOempLqWpfOmcGkwnyNRBR46g/jf8KnPRwXs509yAqDB6sE LZH+yWr9LQZEwARAQABtCVKZWZmIExheXRvbiA8amxheXRvbkBwb29jaGllcmVkcy5uZXQ+iQI7BB MBAgAlAhsDBgsJCAcDAgYVCAIJCgsEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAUCTpXWPAIZAQAKCRAADmhBGVaCFc65D/4 gBLNMHopQYgG/9RIM3kgFCCQV0pLv0hcg1cjr+bPI5f1PzJoOVi9s0wBDHwp8+vtHgYhM54yt43uI 7Htij0RHFL5eFqoVT4TSfAg2qlvNemJEOY0e4daljjmZM7UtmpGs9NN0r9r50W82eb5Kw5bc/r0km R/arUS2st+ecRsCnwAOj6HiURwIgfDMHGPtSkoPpu3DDp/cjcYUg3HaOJuTjtGHFH963B+f+hyQ2B rQZBBE76ErgTDJ2Db9Ey0kw7VEZ4I2nnVUY9B5dE2pJFVO5HJBMp30fUGKvwaKqYCU2iAKxdmJXRI ONb7dSde8LqZahuunPDMZyMA5+mkQl7kpIpR6kVDIiqmxzRuPeiMP7O2FCUlS2DnJnRVrHmCljLkZ Wf7ZUA22wJpepBligemtSRSbqCyZ3B48zJ8g5B8xLEntPo/NknSJaYRvfEQqGxgk5kkNWMIMDkfQO lDSXZvoxqU9wFH/9jTv1/6p8dHeGM0BsbBLMqQaqnWiVt5mG92E1zkOW69LnoozE6Le+12DsNW7Rj iR5K+27MObjXEYIW7FIvNN/TQ6U1EOsdxwB8o//Yfc3p2QqPr5uS93SDDan5ehH59BnHpguTc27Xi QQZ9EGiieCUx6Zh2ze3X2UW9YNzE15uKwkkuEIj60NvQRmEDfweYfOfPVOueC+iFifbQgSmVmZiBM YXl0b24gPGpsYXl0b25AcmVkaGF0LmNvbT6JAjgEEwECACIFAk6V0q0CGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKC wQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEAAOaEEZVoIViKUQALpvsacTMWWOd7SlPFzIYy2/fjvKlfB/Xs4YdNcf9q LqF+lk2RBUHdR/dGwZpvw/OLmnZ8TryDo2zXVJNWEEUFNc7wQpl3i78r6UU/GUY/RQmOgPhs3epQC 3PMJj4xFx+VuVcf/MXgDDdBUHaCTT793hyBeDbQuciARDJAW24Q1RCmjcwWIV/pgrlFa4lAXsmhoa c8UPc82Ijrs6ivlTweFf16VBc4nSLX5FB3ls7S5noRhm5/Zsd4PGPgIHgCZcPgkAnU1S/A/rSqf3F LpU+CbVBDvlVAnOq9gfNF+QiTlOHdZVIe4gEYAU3CUjbleywQqV02BKxPVM0C5/oVjMVx3bri75n1 TkBYGmqAXy9usCkHIsG5CBHmphv9MHmqMZQVsxvCzfnI5IO1+7MoloeeW/lxuyd0pU88dZsV/riHw 87i2GJUJtVlMl5IGBNFpqoNUoqmvRfEMeXhy/kUX4Xc03I1coZIgmwLmCSXwx9MaCPFzV/dOOrju2 xjO+2sYyB5BNtxRqUEyXglpujFZqJxxau7E0eXoYgoY9gtFGsspzFkVNntamVXEWVVgzJJr/EWW0y +jNd54MfPRqH+eCGuqlnNLktSAVz1MvVRY1dxUltSlDZT7P2bUoMorIPu8p7ZCg9dyX1+9T6Muc5d Hxf/BBP/ir+3e8JTFQBFOiLNdFtB9KZWZmIExheXRvbiA8amxheXRvbkBzYW1iYS5vcmc+iQI4BBM BAgAiBQJOldK9AhsDBgsJCAcDAgYVCAIJCgsEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRAADmhBGVaCFWgWD/0ZRi4h N9FK2BdQs9RwNnFZUr7JidAWfCrs37XrA/56olQl3ojn0fQtrP4DbTmCuh0SfMijB24psy1GnkPep naQ6VRf7Dxg/Y8muZELSOtsv2CKt3/02J1BBitrkkqmHyni5fLLYYg6fub0T/8Kwo1qGPdu1hx2BQ RERYtQ/S5d/T0cACdlzi6w8rs5f09hU9Tu4qV1JLKmBTgUWKN969HPRkxiojLQziHVyM/weR5Reu6 FZVNuVBGqBD+sfk/c98VJHjsQhYJijcsmgMb1NohAzwrBKcSGKOWJToGEO/1RkIN8tqGnYNp2G+aR 685D0chgTl1WzPRM6mFG1+n2b2RR95DxumKVpwBwdLPoCkI24JkeDJ7lXSe3uFWISstFGt0HL8Eew P8RuGC8s5h7Ct91HMNQTbjgA+Vi1foWUVXpEintAKgoywaIDlJfTZIl6Ew8ETN/7DLy8bXYgq0Xzh aKg3CnOUuGQV5/nl4OAX/3jocT5Cz/OtAiNYj5mLPeL5z2ZszjoCAH6caqsF2oLyAnLqRgDgR+wTQ T6gMhr2IRsl+cp8gPHBwQ4uZMb+X00c/Amm9VfviT+BI7B66cnC7Zv6Gvmtu2rEjWDGWPqUgccB7h dMKnKDthkA227/82tYoFiFMb/NwtgGrn5n2vwJyKN6SEoygGrNt0SI84y6hEVbQlSmVmZiBMYXl0b 24gPGpsYXl0b25AcHJpbWFyeWRhdGEuY29tPokCOQQTAQIAIwUCU4xmKQIbAwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAg kKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEAAOaEEZVoIV1H0P/j4OUTwFd7BBbpoSp695qb6HqCzWMuExsp8nZjr uymMaeZbGr3OWMNEXRI1FWNHMtcMHWLP/RaDqCJil28proO+PQ/yPhsr2QqJcW4nr91tBrv/MqItu AXLYlsgXqp4BxLP67bzRJ1Bd2x0bWXurpEXY//VBOLnODqThGEcL7jouwjmnRh9FTKZfBDpFRaEfD FOXIfAkMKBa/c9TQwRpx2DPsl3eFWVCNuNGKeGsirLqCxUg5kWTxEorROppz9oU4HPicL6rRH22Ce 6nOAON2vHvhkUuO3GbffhrcsPD4DaYup4ic+DxWm+DaSSRJ+e1yJvwi6NmQ9P9UAuLG93S2MdNNbo sZ9P8k2mTOVKMc+GooI9Ve/vH8unwitwo7ORMVXhJeU6Q0X7zf3SjwDq2lBhn1DSuTsn2DbsNTiDv qrAaCvbsTsw+SZRwF85eG67eAwouYk+dnKmp1q57LDKMyzysij2oDKbcBlwB/TeX16p8+LxECv51a sjS9TInnipssssUDrHIvoTTXWcz7Y5wIngxDFwT8rPY3EggzLGfK5Zx2Q5S/N0FfmADmKknG/D8qG IcJE574D956tiUDKN4I+/g125ORR1v7bP+OIaayAvq17RP+qcAqkxc0x8iCYVCYDouDyNvWPGRhbL UO7mlBpjW9jK9e2fvZY9iw3QzIPGKtClKZWZmIExheXRvbiA8amVmZi5sYXl0b25AcHJpbWFyeWRh dGEuY29tPokCOQQTAQIAIwUCU4xmUAIbAwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEAAOa EEZVoIVzJoQALFCS6n/FHQS+hIzHIb56JbokhK0AFqoLVzLKzrnaeXhE5isWcVg0eoV2oTScIwUSU apy94if69tnUo4Q7YNt8/6yFM6hwZAxFjOXR0ciGE3Q+Z1zi49Ox51yjGMQGxlakV9ep4sV/d5a50 M+LFTmYSAFp6HY23JN9PkjVJC4PUv5DYRbOZ6Y1+TfXKBAewMVqtwT1Y+LPlfmI8dbbbuUX/kKZ5d dhV2736fgyfpslvJKYl0YifUOVy4D1G/oSycyHkJG78OvX4JKcf2kKzVvg7/Rnv+AueCfFQ6nGwPn 0P91I7TEOC4XfZ6a1K3uTp4fPPs1Wn75X7K8lzJP/p8lme40uqwAyBjk+IA5VGd+CVRiyJTpGZwA0 jwSYLyXboX+Dqm9pSYzmC9+/AE7lIgpWj+3iNisp1SWtHc4pdtQ5EU2SEz8yKvDbD0lNDbv4ljI7e flPsvN6vOrxz24mCliEco5DwhpaaSnzWnbAPXhQDWb/lUgs/JNk8dtwmvWnqCwRqElMLVisAbJmC0 BhZ/Ab4sph3EaiZfdXKhiQqSGdK4La3OTJOJYZphPdGgnkvDV9Pl1QZ0ijXQrVIy3zd6VCNaKYq7B AKidn5g/2Q8oio9Tf4XfdZ9dtwcB+bwDJFgvvDYaZ5bI3ln4V3EyW5i2NfXazz/GA/I/ZtbsigCFc 8ftCBKZWZmIExheXRvbiA8amxheXRvbkBrZXJuZWwub3JnPokCOAQTAQIAIgUCWe8u6AIbAwYLCQg HAwIGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQAA5oQRlWghUuCg/+Lb/xGxZD2Q1oJVAE37uW308UpVSD 2tAMJUvFTdDbfe3zKlPDTuVsyNsALBGclPLagJ5ZTP+Vp2irAN9uwBuacBOTtmOdz4ZN2tdvNgozz uxp4CHBDVzAslUi2idy+xpsp47DWPxYFIRP3M8QG/aNW052LaPc0cedYxp8+9eiVUNpxF4SiU4i9J DfX/sn9XcfoVZIxMpCRE750zvJvcCUz9HojsrMQ1NFc7MFT1z3MOW2/RlzPcog7xvR5ENPH19ojRD CHqumUHRry+RF0lH00clzX/W8OrQJZtoBPXv9ahka/Vp7kEulcBJr1cH5Wz/WprhsIM7U9pse1f1g Yy9YbXtWctUz8uvDR7shsQxAhX3qO7DilMtuGo1v97I/Kx4gXQ52syh/w6EBny71CZrOgD6kJwPVV AaM1LRC28muq91WCFhs/nzHozpbzcheyGtMUI2Ao4K6mnY+3zIuXPygZMFr9KXE6fF7HzKxKuZMJO aEZCiDOq0anx6FmOzs5E6Jqdpo/mtI8beK+BE7Va6ni7YrQlnT0i3vaTVMTiCThbqsB20VrbMjlhp f8lfK1XVNbRq/R7GZ9zHESlsa35ha60yd/j3pu5hT2xyy8krV8vGhHvnJ1XRMJBAB/UYb6FyC7S+m QZIQXVeAA+smfTT0tDrisj1U5x6ZB9b3nBg65kc= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.60.2 (3.60.2-1.fc44) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Thu, 2026-09-03 at 10:10 +0800, Tao Cui wrote: > Hi, Jeff >=20 > =E5=9C=A8 2026/9/2 21:03, Jeff Layton =E5=86=99=E9=81=93: > > On Wed, 2026-09-02 at 20:51 +0800, Tao Cui wrote: > > > From: Tao Cui > > >=20 > > > Since Linux 4.9, /proc/locks only shows locks whose owning process is > > > visible in the reader's pid namespace. The check cannot see the > > > owner of an OFD lock, though: locks_translate_pid() always returns > > > -1 for FL_OFDLCK, so an OFD lock held outside of that namespace > > > bypasses the filter and is shown with its device/inode numbers and > > > byte range, e.g. > > >=20 > > > 4: OFDLCK ADVISORY WRITE -1 fd:00:70536961 0 EOF > > >=20 > > > This was observed on a Kubernetes node: a pod reading /proc/locks > > > listed the OFD write lock of an unrelated host process, while the > > > POSIX locks of the very same process were correctly hidden. The > > > device/inode pair identifies which host file is locked, the byte > > > range discloses where it is actively written, and the > > > appearance/disappearance of entries reflects host task activity, > > > contrary to the documented per-pidns visibility of /proc/locks > > > (proc_locks(5)). > > >=20 > > > OFD locks record the owner tgid in flc_pid, so use it for the > > > visibility decision in locks_show(), mirroring what > > > locks_translate_pid() does for POSIX locks. The pid column is still > > > reported as -1 for OFD locks; only the filter decision changes. > > > Remote locks keep their negative flc_pid and stay visible as before. > > >=20 > > > Verified with an OFD and a POSIX write lock held in the initial pid > > > namespace while a process in a fresh pid namespace reads /proc/locks: > > > the OFD entry is visible without this patch and hidden with it, the > > > POSIX entry is hidden in both cases. > > >=20 > > > Signed-off-by: Tao Cui > > >=20 > > > --- > > >=20 > > > Changes since v1: keep remote OFD locks (negative flc_pid) visible in > > > non-initial pid namespaces, as locks_translate_pid() does for remote > > > POSIX locks. > > > --- > > > fs/locks.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) > > >=20 > > > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c > > > index 6e4ff7fcec05..4af1385682e4 100644 > > > --- a/fs/locks.c > > > +++ b/fs/locks.c > > > @@ -3022,6 +3022,25 @@ static int locks_show(struct seq_file *f, void= *v) > > > =20 > > > cur =3D hlist_entry(v, struct file_lock_core, flc_link); > > > =20 > > > + /* > > > + * OFD locks are reported with pid -1, so the filter below cannot s= ee > > > + * their owner; flc_pid holds the owner tgid, so filter on it. > > > + * Remote locks keep a negative flc_pid and stay visible as before. > > > + */ > > > + if ((cur->flc_flags & FL_OFDLCK) && cur->flc_pid > 0 && > > > + proc_pidns !=3D &init_pid_ns) { > > > + struct pid *pid; > > > + bool visible =3D false; > > > + > > > + rcu_read_lock(); > > > + pid =3D find_pid_ns(cur->flc_pid, &init_pid_ns); > > > + if (pid) > > > + visible =3D pid_nr_ns(pid, proc_pidns) !=3D 0; > > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > > + if (!visible) > > > + return 0; > > > + } > > > + > > > if (locks_translate_pid(cur, proc_pidns) =3D=3D 0) > > > return 0; > > > =20 > >=20 > > First: I think this may be the wrong place to do this. Why not fold > > this change into locks_translate_pid()? It seems like we'd have > > inconsistent results wrt lock visibility between /proc/locks and > > F_GETLK if you do this here. > >=20 >=20 > Good point. I did consider that. My hesitation with folding it into > locks_translate_pid() is that posix_lock_to_flock() also uses it, so > F_GETLK/F_OFD_GETLK would then report a conflicting OFD lock with > l_pid =3D 0 instead of the -1 that fcntl(2) documents for OFD locks. > That's why I kept the check in locks_show(), where it only affects > the /proc/locks view. >=20 > That distinction isn't introduced by this patch, though, since it > already exists for POSIX locks: since the 4.9 pid namespace filter, a > foreign-namespace POSIX lock that blocks F_GETLK is reported there > with l_pid =3D 0 while /proc/locks hides it. v2 just gives OFD locks > the same treatment. >=20 > > Thinking about this some more though, I wonder if trying to hide these > > locks is the right thing to do. These locks do exist and they do block > > you from acquiring a lock. If you go to look at /proc/locks and don't > > see them, that seems confusing. > >=20 > > Would we be better off showing all the locks and reporting the pid as a > > negative value for ones acquired in foreign namespaces, like we do for > > remote locks? >=20 > That's a reasonable alternative - anonymizing the owner instead of > hiding the lock does have precedent (fdinfo follows that model), and I > can see the debugging benefit of always showing locks that may block > acquisition. I went with hiding because it preserves the /proc/locks > visibility semantics introduced in 4.9 by making OFD locks consistent > with POSIX locks. With only the pid anonymized, the output would > still disclose which files are locked and the locked byte ranges of > tasks outside the reader's pid namespace. >=20 > If the consensus is that /proc/locks should show all locks with an > anonymized pid instead, I'm happy to rework the patch in that > direction. >=20 I personally think that would be a more useful option. The main reason people look at /proc/locks is to debug locking problems. Hiding locks like this makes that more difficult. While we're on the topic: Should the reader of /proc/locks be able to see locks on superblocks that are not reachable from the current mount namespace? It seems like if you want real container isolation, then what you really want to do is hide those locks. As a further thought: maybe it's time to think about deprecating /proc/locks? It's not extensible, and it's been a source of pain for a long time. We could add something new under /sys, or maybe do something netlink based, and extend lslocks to use that when it's available? --=20 Jeff Layton