Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:5612 unix-pc.general:2300
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!n8emr!uncle!jbm
From: jbm@uncle.UUCP (John B. Milton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,unix-pc.general
Subject: Re: Isn't it amazing what you find in the manuals?
Keywords: unixpc locking manuals security disruption
Message-ID: <486@uncle.UUCP>
Date: 23 Feb 89 05:05:50 GMT
References: <481@uncle.UUCP> <6034@cbmvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: jbm@uncle.UUCP (John B. Milton)
Organization: U.N.C.L.E.
Lines: 20

In article <6034@cbmvax.UUCP> ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto) writes:
>In article <481@uncle.UUCP> jbm@uncle.UUCP (John B. Milton) writes:
[locking()]
>The Unix PC has "real" SysV locking (see fcntl(2) and lockf(3)), so
>programs should not need locking(2).
I feel very stupid, both for not checking section 3 for flock, and for not
checking fcntl. I think you're right, with these entry points, locking() does
not NEED to be called directly.

>I thought locking() only provided advisory locks.  Have you actually
>tried those examples?  I'm not near a Unix PC at the moment so I can't
>try it or look at the manual.  If it really does provide enforcement
>locking, then yes, it is a serious problem.
Oh yeah, I tried it. I couldn't stop laughing when I was writing the list of
possible "uses".

John
-- 
John Bly Milton IV, jbm@uncle.UUCP, n8emr!uncle!jbm@osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu
(614) h:294-4823, w:764-2933;  Got any good 74LS503 circuits?