🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2800BA22.1CAE@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:

>His patches for Smail, however, are *far* more than is required.
>Smail 3 already has a knob that controls mailbox locking specifically.
>In conf/EDITME, and in conf/os/<your-os-here>, do *not* set
>FLOCK_MAILBOX.  That's it.  (See the comments in conf/os/sys5* for
>further description of of FLOCK_MAILBOX.)

You should be aware though that the smail3 mailbox locking code is
not particularly robust when using lockfiles.  The usual problem
of removing a different lockfile than you tested is made fairly
likely in cases where the file being tested actually belonged to
an exiting smail.  Try setting smail's delivery mode to background
and arrange to have several messages delivered while you hit the
'$' in elm to re-sync, and you will have a pretty good change of
losing messages.  I tried to fix this by stat'ing the lockfile and
refusing to delete it unless it is fairly old, but I'm still not
sure it is perfect.
Failure scenario:
  Process A owns lockfile - Processes B & C are contending for one.
  B reads A's PID from lockfile.
  A finishes, removes lockfile and exits.
  B sends signal 0 to A's PID, notes that process is gone.
  C notes that no lockfile is present and creates one.
  B removes lockfile (now belonging to C) and creates one.
  At this point both B and C think they have exclusive access to
  the mailbox.
Note that the trick of sleep()ing a few seconds after deleting a
stale file does not help at all in this scenario, since the exiting
program deleted it's own file.  I recently saw HDB uucico's debug
output say something like:
mlock  tty64 succeeded
failed to lock device tty64
indicating that the lockfile code had in fact failed to keep two
processes from accessing the same device concurrently, but the
kernel lock succeeded.  Thus anyone who thinks the HDB lockfile 
locking code is foolproof is mistaken.

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us