From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Aug 23 9:52:47 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88EEC15852; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 09:52:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dcs@newsguy.com) Received: from newsguy.com by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN) id BAA23026; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:50:57 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <37C172B7.40AD1029@newsguy.com> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 01:11:35 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pt-BR,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Daniel O'Connor" Cc: Greg Lehey , Garrett Wollman , FreeBSD Committers , FreeBSD Hackers , Poul-Henning Kamp , Matthew Dillon Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org - Come on. - Where are we going? - To get what you came for. - What's that? - Me. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message