Subject: Re: 32 bit dev_t
To: Charles M. Hannum <>
From: Todd Vierling <tv@NetBSD.ORG>
List: tech-kern
Date: 01/13/1998 09:28:48
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Charles M. Hannum wrote:

: There's a potentially nasty `stupid user' issue lurking here.  If you
: simply follow Chris's proposal and do a straight 12/20 split, using
: major number 0 to flag old-style nodes, then an old MAKEDEV(8) with a
: new mknod(8) or a new MAKEDEV(8) with an old mknod(8) will create
: bogus device numbers.  This is going to bite people -- maybe even
: inadvertantly opening security holes.

Well, during development (I'd think switching dev_t's would warrant a letter
bump from `B' to `C' perhaps?  :) we can expect things to bite.  However, it
should be adequate to require those tracking -current to update /dev/MAKEDEV
and mknod(8) at the same time--for those going release to release, that will
happen automatically as both are in the base binary set.

===== Todd Vierling (Personal =====
== "There's a myth that there is a scarcity of justice to go around, so
== that if we extend justice to 'those people,' it will somehow erode the
== quality of justice everyone else receives."  -- Maria Price