[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#43529: debian-policy: mail locking in Debian is _not_ NFS safe



severity 43529 fixed
thanks

On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:

> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.0.1.1
> Severity: important
> 
> Policy says the following about the locking of mail:
> 
>      All Debian MUAs and MTAs have to use the `maillock' and `mailunlock'
>      functions provided by the `liblockfile' packages to lock and unlock
>      mail boxes. These functions implement a NFS-safe locking mechanism.
>      (It is ok if MUAs and MTAs don't link against liblockfile but use a
>      _compatible_ mechanism. Please compare the mechanisms very carefully!)
> 
> The problem with this is, that liblockfile is not NFS-safe when the
> client machine runs Linux 2.2.*.

I consider this bug fixed in 3.1.0.0, because this policy version
changed the above mail locking section (see #43651) to:

     All Debian MUAs, MTAs, MDAs and other mailbox accessing programs (like
     IMAP daemons) have to lock the mailbox in a NFS-safe way.  This means
     that `fcntl()' locking has to be combined with dot locking.  To avoid
     dead locks, a program has to use `fcntl()' first and dot locking after
     this or alternatively implement the two locking methods in a non
     blocking way[1].  Using the functions `maillock' and `mailunlock'
     provided by the `liblockfile*'[2] packages is the recommended way to
     realize this.

     [1]  If it is not possible to establish both locks, the system
          shouldn't wait for the second lock to be established, but remove
          the first lock, wait a (random) time, and start over locking
          again.

     [2]  `liblockfile' version >>1.01

There's still the problem, that we don't have a liblockfile >>1.01
available yet, but this isn't a bug in the policy but in liblockfile,
which is reported as #43491.

Ciao

        Roland

-- 
 * roland@spinnaker.de * http://www.spinnaker.de/ *


Reply to: