Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:16:29 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: phk@phk.freebsd.dk Cc: arch@freebsd.org, jhein@timing.com Subject: Re: tt_ioctl Message-ID: <20080409.101629.-146244298.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <50325.1207757374@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <18428.59782.318085.53492@gromit.timing.com> <50325.1207757374@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <50325.1207757374@critter.freebsd.dk>
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> writes:
: In message <18428.59782.318085.53492@gromit.timing.com>, John E Hein writes:
:
: >That said... if we do decide to _not_ hook up t_ioctl, then we should
: >just remove it entirely since it's misleading that it's there but not
: >hooked up.
:
: Well, if we agree that you should use a non-tty device, we may still
: miss the poster child ioctl to make the decision...
I don't think we agreed that should use a non-tty device. There's
good reasons to allow ioctls passed through to the driver. There's
historical precedent, and if there's a security concern, the driver
writer can put a suser() call to make sure that things are cool for
mere mortals.
Basically, having another device would be very duplicative in the
driver, and the reasons for it don't make sense to me.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080409.101629.-146244298.imp>