Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pacbell!ditka!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Demand paged executables Summary: no need to prevent pure-text being unlinked. Message-ID: <12180@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 3 Feb 89 03:38:34 GMT References: <409@lakart.UUCP> <7599@chinet.chi.il.us> Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) Organization: River Parishes Programming, Dallas TX Lines: 18 In article <7599@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >Now, if a.outs need this kind of protection (and they do) why isn't >the same thing done for shell scripts - i.e prevent them from being >modified while running? Shell scripts should be protected from modification during execution, but you weren't dicussing preventing pure-text files from being opened for writing. There _is_ a need to prevent text prototypes from being modified. There is not a need to prevent a pure-text file from being unlinked. The kernel is capable of recovering the disk space when the last reference [ loaded process ] goes away. Disallowing write permission on pure-text files should be all that is needed. [ And disallowing execution of pure-text files which are opened for writing ] -- John F. Haugh II +--Quote of the Week:------------------ VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Get it through your head: InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | CARS ARE THE ENEMY." UucpNet : !killer!rpp386!jfh +------ -- Bob Fishell ----------