List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Paul DuBois Date:November 19 1999 6:09am
Subject:Re: privileges for GET_LOCK?
View as plain text  
At 3:54 PM +1100 11/19/99, Benjamin Low wrote:
>This question was raised in July this year (in amongst much talk of the
>GET_LOCK function), but I cannot find a response:
>
>What privileges are required to execute GET_LOCK()? (It appears the
>answer is 'none'.)
>
>This strikes me as greatly reducing the usefulness of GET_LOCK. Anyone
>who has access to the server, with appropriate knowledge or through
>persistence, can starve another user/application which relies on a
>static lock string, or impede an app. using dynamic lock strings...

True.

GET_LOCK() provides a mechanism for advisory, cooperative locking.
A situation such as you describe is certainly possible.

At least until you notice what's going on, determine who the
obstreperous client is, and remove all their access privileges
for being such a jerk. :-)

-- 
Paul DuBois, paul@stripped
Thread
privileges for GET_LOCK?Benjamin Low19 Nov
  • Re: privileges for GET_LOCK?Paul DuBois19 Nov
  • umask for bind on LOCAL socketBenjamin Low30 Nov
    • Re: umask for bind on LOCAL socketPaul DuBois30 Nov
  • Re: umask for bind on LOCAL socketBenjamin Low30 Nov
    • Re: umask for bind on LOCAL socketPaul DuBois30 Nov
  • Re: umask for bind on LOCAL socketBenjamin Low30 Nov