Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 16:00:00 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Murray <markm@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha mem.c src/sys/alpha/conf GENERIC src/sys/alpha/include memdev.h src/sys/amd64/amd64 io.c mem.c src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC NOTES src/sys/amd64/include iodev.h memdev.h src/sys/conf NOTES files files.alpha files.amd64 ... Message-ID: <200408021600.00339.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200408011140.i71BesOt070889@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200408011140.i71BesOt070889@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 01 August 2004 07:40 am, Mark Murray wrote: > markm 2004-08-01 11:40:54 UTC > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: > sys/alpha/alpha mem.c > sys/alpha/conf GENERIC > sys/amd64/amd64 mem.c > sys/amd64/conf GENERIC NOTES > sys/conf NOTES files files.alpha files.amd64 > files.i386 files.ia64 files.pc98 > files.sparc64 > [ ... ] Why in the world are /dev/null and /dev/zero optional? /dev/[k]mem and /dev/io I can accept for those with uber-high security paranoia, but I can't think of any good reason to have a kernel without /dev/null and /dev/zero. To me it seems that this creates way more foot shooting potential than benefit. It's one thing to have device drivers for hardware that may or may not be present optional, but /dev/null and /dev/zero do not fall into that case. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200408021600.00339.jhb>