Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 15:47:50 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, "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: <v04210104b3e75504e8aa@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <37C172B7.40AD1029@newsguy.com> References: <XFMail.990823153524.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <37C172B7.40AD1029@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 1:11 AM +0900 8/24/99, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: >Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > 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. If we spent our time thinking about the implementation, maybe we could come up with something which meets the needs of the people who would use mandatory locking, without introducing any kind of security hole. Let's list what the potential security risks are, and see if we can't think our way around them. --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 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?v04210104b3e75504e8aa>