Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:11:35 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, FreeBSD Committers <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? Message-ID: <37C172B7.40AD1029@newsguy.com> References: <XFMail.990823153524.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > On 23-Aug-99 Greg Lehey wrote: > > I'm a little surprised that there's any objection to the concept of > > mandatory locking. In transaction processing, locking is not > > optional, and if any process at all can access a file or set of files > > without locking, you can't guarantee the database integrity. Other > > OSs have used mandatory locking for decades, and System V has it too. > > So far I haven't seen any arguments, let alone valid ones, against > > having it in FreeBSD. > > I think its a good idea, and hey if people object it can always be an option > like -> > > option NO_MANDATORY_LOCKING > > Phew, that was tough. When introducing security holes, the default should be the hole not being present. Ie, reverse that option. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org - Come on. - Where are we going? - To get what you came for. - What's that? - Me. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37C172B7.40AD1029>