static int
lock_all (KEYDB_HANDLE hd)
{
int i, rc = 0;
for (i=0; !rc && i < hd->used; i++) {
switch (hd->active[i].type) {
case KEYDB_RESOURCE_TYPE_NONE:
break;
case KEYDB_RESOURCE_TYPE_KEYRING:
rc = keyring_lock (hd->active[i].u.kr, 1);
break;
}
}
if (rc) {
/* revert the already set locks */
for (i--; i >= 0; i--) {
switch (hd->active[i].type) {
case KEYDB_RESOURCE_TYPE_NONE:
break;
case KEYDB_RESOURCE_TYPE_KEYRING:
keyring_lock (hd->active[i].u.kr, 0);
break;
}
}
}
else
hd->locked = 1;
return rc;
}
static int
lock_all (KEYDB_HANDLE hd)
{
int i, rc = 0;
/* Fixme: This locking scheme may lead to a deadlock if the resources
are not added in the same order by all processes. We are
currently only allowing one resource so it is not a problem.
[Oops: Who claimed the latter]
To fix this we need to use a lock file to protect lock_all. */
for (i=0; !rc && i < hd->used; i++)
{
switch (hd->active[i].type)
{
case KEYDB_RESOURCE_TYPE_NONE:
break;
case KEYDB_RESOURCE_TYPE_KEYRING:
rc = keyring_lock (hd->active[i].u.kr, 1);
break;
case KEYDB_RESOURCE_TYPE_KEYBOX:
rc = keybox_lock (hd->active[i].u.kb, 1);
break;
}
}
if (rc)
{
/* Revert the already taken locks. */
for (i--; i >= 0; i--)
{
switch (hd->active[i].type)
{
case KEYDB_RESOURCE_TYPE_NONE:
break;
case KEYDB_RESOURCE_TYPE_KEYRING:
keyring_lock (hd->active[i].u.kr, 0);
break;
case KEYDB_RESOURCE_TYPE_KEYBOX:
rc = keybox_lock (hd->active[i].u.kb, 0);
break;
}
}
}
else
hd->locked = 1;
return rc;
}
static void
unlock_all (KEYDB_HANDLE hd)
{
int i;
if (!hd->locked)
return;
for (i=hd->used-1; i >= 0; i--) {
switch (hd->active[i].type) {
case KEYDB_RESOURCE_TYPE_NONE:
break;
case KEYDB_RESOURCE_TYPE_KEYRING:
keyring_lock (hd->active[i].u.kr, 0);
break;
}
}
hd->locked = 0;
}
