[lkml]   [1998]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: devfs
    "Albert D. Cahalan" <> writes:

    > I've seen a few "nothing is broken" posts. Things _are_ broken.
    > Leaving aside the issue of a bloated /dev full of junk I don't
    > have, there are some serious reasons for a devfs. It needs to
    > be a real devfs too, not some weak hack.

    The reasons below amount to "we need a devfs because"

    "#1. Non-unix fileystems don't support devices". Excuse me while I
    cry. They also don't support a/c/m/times, hard links, long case
    sensitive filenames, reasonable performance, unix sockets, and inode
    numbers. Why focus on devices? Face is, non-unix filesystems will
    never have the feature set of unix filesystems. That's what the
    'non-unix' bit means.

    "#2. Ptys aren't very clean". No kidding. But there are much much
    better ways of fixing the ptys than building a devfs. Ptys have a
    fairly specific problem that nothing else in the /dev world does.

    > *** Read-only filesystems ***
    > [ .. ] The Linux root filesystem can not be read-only because the
    > normal /dev must be read-write to allow tty ownership changes.

    No to mention utmp, wtmp, any sort of logging, etc. Fact #1. A read
    only filesystem is always going to be a very special case. Fact
    #2. Nothing stops you building pty's on a seperate read-write

    > *** NTFS ***
    non-unix file system.

    > *** PTY security ***
    [ Pty ownership issues ]

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.019 / U:7.388 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site