Subject: devfs, was Re: ptyfs fully working now...
To: Jonathan Stone <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/12/2004 16:13:26
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 10:07:12AM -0800, Jonathan Stone wrote:
> Hi Christos,=20
> A question: consider the security-paraonid (or change-resistant
> troglodytes, if you prefer) amongst us who would rather "Just Say No"
> to anything that smacks of devfs, and would rather statically
> preconfigure everything, existing pty warts and all.
What do you have against devfs? Are your objections against devfs in=20
general, or against a specific implementation (or implementations :-) ?
I ask as I really want us to have a devfs, however I've had a HUGE=20
objection over time, and that is that the permissions on nodes need to=20
persist across reboot. I suspect that this is your objection, however I'm=
not a mind reader and thus I'm not sure. :-)
My concern has been that we want device permissions to persist across=20
reboot, and preferably across variations in configuration order. Jason's=20
work on wedges has been one step in this direction, in that certain=20
partitioning schemes name partitions. If we bind the device partitions to=
the name, then we do not need to worry as much about device config order,=
and devfs seems much safer. We can extend this pattern to bind to other=20
devices too, though some devices may be more problematic than others.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----