Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > one thing that HAS to happen is the fast that some devices CAN'T "appeare"
> > until the devfsd says it can, unless we force a very restrictive permision
> > on all devices (600 or something similar) otherwise we will have security
> > wholes up the wazoo... don't forget about this... a devfsd daemon is
> > definately the way to go...
>
> While I sharply disagree, with your assertion, I also point out that if
> you make such a all-singing-all-dancing devfsd, then you might as well get
> rid of devfs entirely, and just have devfsd make the devices using normal
> mknod commands.
Hmm - rip out the whole devfs infrastructure and replace it with something
which writes tuples of (operation, devname, major, minor) to a socket
somewhere, where "operation" is "create", "delete", "online", "offline",
etc. Why worry about the complexities of a vfs to handle /dev in the
kernel when almost all of it can be done in userland?
[ Heh. *now* there'll be some wailing and gnashing of teeth... :-) ]
- mark
----
Mark Newton Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W)
Network Engineer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H)
Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82232999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
