Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> On 23-Aug-99 Greg Lehey wrote:
> > I'm a little surprised that there's any objection to the concept of
> > mandatory locking. In transaction processing, locking is not
> > optional, and if any process at all can access a file or set of files
> > without locking, you can't guarantee the database integrity. Other
> > OSs have used mandatory locking for decades, and System V has it too.
> > So far I haven't seen any arguments, let alone valid ones, against
> > having it in FreeBSD.
>
> 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.
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
d...@newsguy.com
d...@freebsd.org
- Come on.
- Where are we going?
- To get what you came for.
- What's that?
- Me.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
