> > 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 majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
