Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 22:12:38 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Committers <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? Message-ID: <199908232012.WAA78393@gratis.grondar.za>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Now I suppose you're going to come and say that this is bad > > programming, and advisory locking would do the job if the software is > > written right. Correct. You could also use the same argument to say > > that memory protection isn't necessary, because a correctly written > > program doesn't overwrite other processes address space. It's the > > same thing: file protection belongs in the kernel. > > Well, I'd say advisory lock does the job if the software is written > right, and if the software is not written right, mandatory locking > won't help. Folk are all skirting around a very convenient (and necessary) loophole; in cases where there _is_ mandatory locking, there is always some meta-user which is allowed to violate this. In process-space, this is the kernel. In file-space, this should be root. Processes that require mandatory locking must revoke superuser before attempting locks. M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org 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?199908232012.WAA78393>