Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!mason
From: mason@utcsri.UUCP (Dave Mason)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: Locking, again
Message-ID: <882@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Mar-85 16:03:05 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsri.882
Posted: Thu Mar 14 16:03:05 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Mar-85 16:29:30 EST
References: <1685@seismo.UUCP>
Reply-To: mason@utcsri.UUCP (Dave mason)
Organization: University of Toronto/Ryerson Polytechnic Institute
Lines: 15
Summary: non-discretionary locking isn't so bad


Mike O'Dell claims out that non-discretionary locking could bring a system
to it's knees.  I suggest that the examples he gives are far from proof.

The reason I disagree, is that I see no reason why any operating system would
allow someone to lock a file that they cannot write to.  Therefore the only
user who could lock say /etc/passwd is root (and we trust her, right? ;-).
In general the only people who can cause havoc with file A by locking it
can presumably cause much more problems by modifying it.
-- 
Usenet:	{dalcs dciem garfield musocs qucis sask titan trigraph ubc-vision
 	 utzoo watmath allegra cornell decvax decwrl ihnp4 uw-beaver}
	!utcsri!mason		Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRI
CSNET:	mason@Toronto
ARPA:	mason%Toronto@CSNet-Relay