--QTprm0S8XgL7H0Dt
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 09:29:52AM +0200, pcah8322@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz=
 wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 05:48:06PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > The reason I'm interested in locators is so that if devices renumber
> > themselves, the permissions follow. I am assuming, but I think we'd rat=
her
> > not use locators for names (/dev/sd.52004567BA64678D anyone?). But if w=
e=20
> > can tie the permissions to a locator, then it doesn't matter if it's sd=
2=20
> > or sd12. :-)
>=20
> I think it does matter, because all userland programs use device names,
> not locators. If permissions are enforced by an userland program, they
> will not follow locators.

Oh, but part of all of this would be that userland would be able to find=20
out the locators for a device! It won't work any other way.

Take care,

Bill

--QTprm0S8XgL7H0Dt
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFDYPvdWz+3JHUci9cRAvyuAJ9As1Dn8a+TfDkOF32H+92CM/VvSgCePZhv
MivNUlz1OELDNiTCuRNd630=
=xw2V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--QTprm0S8XgL7H0Dt--