Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:21:42 +0100 (IST) | From | Paul Jakma <> | Subject | Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers |
| |
On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Paul Jakma wrote:
> devfs is a good thing. I and all the rest who have tried it and use it > regularly think so. And those of us who tried it and decided that it's the wrong solution to a set of non-problems think otherwise.
imo it's a far cleaner and transparent way of doing things, which solves one or two little problems along the way, (eg dynamic devices). > It's compatible, it's clean, it eliminates /dev admin maintenance. What /dev admin maintenance? Perhaps my machines don't have enough disks, but I have never needed to perform significant work in /dev. ok /dev maintenance is not a regular thing. But when you have to do it, it can be a pain. Eg permissions. With devfs you can specify that certain classes of devices should have a certain permission, eg scsi disks should be root:disk 660. And if you add a disk - even during runtime! - the devfs daemon will make it so by communicating with kernel devfs. ie the device is created with those perm's. it's not created and then chown/chmod'd. (which could leave it vulnerable for a split second).
Notice that the policy is maintained in userspace by devfsd.
-- Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie http://hibernia.clubi.ie PGP5 key: http://www.clubi.ie/jakma/publickey.txt ------------------------------------------- Fortune: It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |