Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 23:12:28 -0400 From: David Holland <dholland@cs.toronto.edu> To: rotel@indigo.ie Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DEVFS & SLICE? Message-ID: <98Sep26.231232edt.37814-5346@qew.cs.toronto.edu> In-Reply-To: <199809261328.OAA00354@indigo.ie> from "Niall Smart" at Sep 26, 98 10:28:27 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> MAKEDEV should probably be built from a file which describes kernel
> devices, maintanence of this would be so easy as to be a non-issue
> and would have the side effect of a database of device major and
> minor numbers which the DEVFS approach doesn't seem to afford.
Major and minor device numbers are a projection of internal kernel
guts into user space. As such, they are a problem, not a feature.
The DEVFS approach, when taken to its conclusion, ultimately leads to
abolishing the concept entirely. You'd still need dev_t for stat, but
you don't need or want to interpret the contents.
> These two issues seem more or less the same, using DEVFS simply
> moves the checking from mknod code to DEVFS code. Any general
> framework implemented in DEVFS for controlling device visibility
> in chroot environments could just as easily be provided for mknod.
Huh? How do you tell mknod(2) that it can only create nodes in (say)
/dev, /home/ftp/dev, and /usr/test/chroot/dev?
--
- David A. Holland | (please continue to send non-list mail to
dholland@cs.utoronto.ca | dholland@hcs.harvard.edu. yes, I moved.)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?98Sep26.231232edt.37814-5346>