From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Aug 23 16:14:39 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from xylan.com (postal.xylan.com [208.8.0.248]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9792614EF8 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:14:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from mailhub.xylan.com by xylan.com (8.8.7/SMI-SVR4 (xylan-mgw 2.2 [OUT])) id QAA18698; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from utah.XYLAN.COM by mailhub.xylan.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4 (mailhub 2.1 [HUB])) id QAA29343; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:03:13 -0700 Received: from softweyr.com by utah.XYLAN.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4 (xylan utah [SPOOL])) id RAA28838; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:10:22 -0600 Message-ID: <37C1D4DE.3607D17C@softweyr.com> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:10:22 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuck Robey Cc: Garance A Drosihn , Ville-Pertti Keinonen , Greg Lehey , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Chuck Robey wrote: > > I think Garrett's fears are of folks unwittingly wedging machines too > easily, so real mandatory locking ought to be restricted to programs > that root can set up. And those fears are well-founded, but your proposed solution just creates another set of bottlenecks. Making mandatory locks available to any process and giving root an avenue by which it can revoke the locks, by whatever means, is a better solution. SIGKILL seems like an ideal candidate to me. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://softweyr.com/ wes@softweyr.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message