On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:09 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 08:29:55 +0100, a écrit : > > Well the basic problem is of course to detect processes generated by
> There's no hidden > process in there, and the fork hook should get you done. I never talked about any hidden process, did I? > But again, I'm still unsure why you believe that locks are being > inherited through fork(): before introducing a fork hook to forcibly > unlock something, one needs to be absolutely sure that it's actually > locked. Actually it'd even look like a design flaw if two process could > actually hold a lock on the same piece of a file... Well, the patches are already submitted, and there is test code for locks inherited by fork(2): fork.c Maybe you should apply the patches and see for yourself, instead of always doubt everything I report :(
