At 1:11 AM +0900 8/24/99, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> 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.
If we spent our time thinking about the implementation, maybe we
could come up with something which meets the needs of the people
who would use mandatory locking, without introducing any kind of
security hole.
Let's list what the potential security risks are, and see if we
can't think our way around them.
---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = g...@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or dro...@rpi.edu
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
