Tracking Issue for File lock API

[cberner]

Feature gate: #![feature(file_lock)]

This is a tracking issue for rust-lang/libs-team#412

This feature exposes advisory file locks on File. They allow a file handle to acquire an exclusive or shared file lock, which blocks other file handles to the same file from acquiring a conflicting lock. Some semantics are platform dependent, and these are documented in the API documentation.

Public API

impl File {
    fn lock(&self) -> io::Result<()>;
    fn lock_shared(&self) -> io::Result<()>;
    fn try_lock(&self) -> io::Result<bool>;
    fn try_lock_shared(&self) -> io::Result<bool>;
    fn unlock(&self) -> io::Result<()>;
}

Steps / History

• Implementation: Implement file_lock feature #130999
• Final comment period (FCP)¹
• Signature changed due to feedback: Change signature of File::try_lock and File::try_lock_shared #139343
• Signature changed again due to feedback: Change File::try_lock() and try_lock_shared() to return io::Result<()> #140718
• Simpler error propagation: Add From<TryLockError> for io::Error #141312
• Stabilization PR

Unresolved Questions

• None yet.

Footnotes

1. https://std-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/feature-lifecycle/stabilization.html ↩

[workingjubilee]

apparently not supported on all tier 2 OS: #132921

[eric-seppanen]

Note that this triggers the unstable_name_collisions lint for code using the fs2/fs3/fs4 crates, all of which have a FileExt trait with methods called lock_shared, try_lock_shared, and unlock.

This lint fires on the 1.84 beta release, so there might be a number of people who discover this once 1.84 stable goes out.

[NilsIrl]

It would also be useful to atomically create and lock a file. This is possible on MacOS using the O_SHLOCK and O_EXLOCK flags on open and on Linux using O_TMPFILE.

[joshtriplett]

While there are more features we may want to add to this in the future, the current state of this seems useful, and works. Stabilizing it would let people who encounter the warnings about a future conflict switch to the new API.

Shall we stabilize the current File locking APIs?

@rfcbot merge

[rfcbot]

Team member @joshtriplett has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

• @Amanieu
• @BurntSushi
• @dtolnay
• @joshtriplett
• @m-ou-se

Concerns:

• api-is-unergonomic (Tracking Issue for File lock API #130994 (comment))

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[m-ou-se]

I'd like to see some documentation on the lock methods that make it clear that you don't need to manually unlock / that the lock is automatically unlocked when the File is dropped. Right now, that's only documented on the unlock method.

Other than that, the documentation could be made a lot less confusing by adding 'by another process' and 'by the same process' in a few places. Right now, the try methods say "Returns false if the file is locked.", but then go on to say it might deadlock if it's already locked. I assume the former should be "locked by another process" and the latter should be "locked by this process".