On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 10:59:10PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > > Dunno about that.. if you're using advisory locking, you know to say > > "lock the file, then read the data, do your calculation, write it out, > > and unlock". This manditory locking sounds like an invitation for > > disaster. "I don't need to pay attention to the details because > > the kernel will take care of it for me." > > > > Actually, I don't really understand the paradigm. Two processes need > > to safely update a file, so one of them aquires a mandatory lock, and > > the other.. uh.. just blocks trying to open the file? How does it > > know it's not the first one? > > It means that if user A puts data in (and follows locking procedure > correctly) then he doesn't have to worry that user B might not be > following correct locking procedure, because user B is mandatorily > forced to follow the procedure. There isn't any added sloppiness, just > a guarantee that if one user locks a file, no other rogues can get into > it while the lock exists.
Bleah.. I can't count the number of times I've seen idiotic code like: open file read data close file open file for write write data close file Mandatory locking of the type above doesn't force such a thing to work. Now that I've read the rest of the thread, I see that the meaning may be that certain files are marked such that they can't be opened without locking. That seems extremely dangerous, given all the time that such a thing hasn't been around.. who knows how many scripts and programs will now be vulnerable to hanging forever.. can I lock my maildrop? My web pages? My print spool? -- Christopher Masto Senior Network Monkey NetMonger Communications ch...@netmonger.net i...@netmonger.net http://www.netmonger.net Free yourself, free your machine, free the daemon -- http://www.freebsd.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
