Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:20:43 -0700 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: devfs persistence Message-ID: <199802162323.QAA02791@pluto.plutotech.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:17:13 MST." <199802162317.QAA25687@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ CC trimmed even further ] >> 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? You have to provide a mechanism like this prototypes or no. There is no guarantee that the specified prototypes will be sufficient to safe guard against all device arrivals... only the arrivals that you expect to occur. Imagine performing a system upgrade and a few nodes show up that weren't there before... you lose. Another way of implementing this would be to have a mount option that specifies that all new device entries arrive with mode 000. This may not satisfy the truly paranoid sysadmin though as some information about the system is given just by the node being visible. >Nate -- Justin 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?199802162323.QAA02791>