From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Aug 23 12:34:54 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail1.its.rpi.edu (mail1.its.rpi.edu [128.113.100.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCA115072 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:34:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail1.its.rpi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA46836; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 15:33:02 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 15:33:29 -0400 To: Chuck Robey , Ville-Pertti Keinonen From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? Cc: Greg Lehey , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 11:29 AM -0400 8/23/99, Chuck Robey wrote: >I think mandatory locking should exist, but only be available to root. >If a program needs this, it must run with root privs, so that ordinary >users cannot wedge the machine, but (as usual) root can shoot himself >in the foot (traditional Unix methodology). I don't think we want to force people into running their program as root just to get mandatory locking. Perhaps there would be a program with root-privs which would have to be run to register files which will have mandatory locking, but the program which manipulates those files shouldn't have to run as root. --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message