Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 17:31:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD Committers <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? Message-ID: <199908230031.RAA00909@apollo.backplane.com> References: <19990823095310.A83273@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:Questions:
:
:1. Do we have some form of mandatory locking? If so, what is it?
No we don't, unless you count the ad-hoc lockout in the master/slave pty
interface :-).
:2. Would it make sense to implement System V's fcntl semantics?
: They're rather tacky: you set the setgid bit and reset the group
: exec bit of the file permissions.
Ugh. Yuch. No, nothing to do with permission bits, not for something
this convoluted!
:3. Alternatively (or additionally), would it make sense to have an
: additional fcntl function which performs mandatory locking?
:
:I think that it's probably a good idea to implement (3), and also to
:do (2), possibly subject to a sysctl knob.
:
:Greg
Well, #3 can't be mandatory if you have to make a fcntl call! You mean
have one program make a fcntl call that causes other programs to
return an error or block if they try to open that file while the first
program holds an open descriptor?
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
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?199908230031.RAA00909>