Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:17:13 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: devfs persistence Message-ID: <199802162317.QAA25687@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199802162312.QAA02368@pluto.plutotech.com> References: <199802162305.QAA25582@mt.sri.com> <199802162312.QAA02368@pluto.plutotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ Cut back Cc list a bit ] > ... > > >With DEVFS, no such 'safety' margin exists, since the device is created > >possibly with the administrator realizing it. > > I've already proposed a way to deal with this - you tell the system > not to show new device arrivals unless they have explicit backing store > (i.e. the administrator has acknowledged that the device exists and has > proper permissions). Now we're losing one of the bigger 'advantages' (outside of the code) of using DEVFS. Why hamper ourselves so much for no gain? > Most people would not be interested in running > this way, but for the security conscious, you can ask to get the old > "MAKEDEV like" behavior back. See above. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199802162317.QAA25687>