Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 05 Oct 1999 20:37:19 -0700 | | From | "Michael S. Fischer" <> | | Subject | Re: [linux-usb] Re: USB device allocation |
| |
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" wrote:
> And the third part is the the filesystem interface which > makes "/dev" appear, and maintaines persistance of ownership and modes > across reboots, etc.
I'm unclear as to why persistence is a desired thing with USB peripherals, because with USB, persistence is not guaranteed.
You make a good argument that devices need access control. But why should we stick to inode-based policy mechanisms? Why not something more advanced?
It just seems awfully silly to me that we're applying 1970s device access and access control methods to 1990s (and later) devices. Isn't there a better paradigm for this? The "device is a file" concept has its advantages, but now I'm beginning to think it's more a hindrance than a help, since the devices (and therefore the device nodes) can no longer be depended upon to be persistent.
--Michael
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |