On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 23:57:24 +0200, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> Well, if you do that, i think some callers need a look, for example
That change was specific to F_SETLK so the callers you reference
are not affected. However, I did miss F_GETLK, which needs the
same treatment.
- todd
Index: sys/
Todd C. Miller(mill...@openbsd.org) on 2019.06.25 09:27:19 -0600:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:18:28 -0600, "Todd C. Miller" wrote:
>
> > The ERRORS section could be clearer as to what error you get when
> > you try to lock a socket/fifo.
>
> Actually, for fcntl(2), we should be returning EINVAL, not
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:18:28 -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> The ERRORS section could be clearer as to what error you get when
> you try to lock a socket/fifo.
There is no need to change fcntl.2 or lockf.2, they already document
the behavior under EINVAL. The only outlier now is flock.2 so use
th
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:18:28 -0600, "Todd C. Miller" wrote:
> The ERRORS section could be clearer as to what error you get when
> you try to lock a socket/fifo.
Actually, for fcntl(2), we should be returning EINVAL, not EBADF
when trying to lock a non-file. Let's fix that first.
- todd
Index:
The ERRORS section could be clearer as to what error you get when
you try to lock a socket/fifo.
- todd
Index: lib/libc/gen/lockf.3
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libc/gen/lockf.3,v
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -p -u -r1.13 lockf.3
