> > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
