Doesn't this radically change the constraints of the dining philosophers problem? The existence "fork <- revoke" calls mean that you're no longer designing a s

Doesn't this radically change the constraints of the dining philosophers problem? The existence "fork <- revoke" calls mean that you're no longer designing a solution for coordination/resource management (the usual aim of dining philosophers); you're designing a system in which a higher-permissioned administration system manages resources for lower-permissioned users. The untrusted-peer problem is interesting on its own, but my gut says it's different from the usual aim of this puzzle: to figure out the simplest/best strategies, or simplest/best means of central administration, required to manage resources effectively.