lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device allocation)
Date
> >  Device names are decided by the driver registering them. [...]
>
> Names _are_ policy. So now I have to hack the kernel to
> rename the mouse?
>

oh come on horst.. you know perfectly well the kernel has to set some kind
of policy.. it's either major/minor's or names. no way round it. Try be
constructive.


> There is an even thinner layer that does that, called
> mknod(8)+chmod(1)...
>

ie operator intervention, which is going to get more and more awkward as
devices become more and more dynamic.

>
> Neither is any "dynamic" name assignment, where names are
> compiled into the
> kernel (see above). As none of the alternatives (devfs and
> increased dev_t)
> really solves this problem,
> which clearly is the central point of the
> exercise anyway, we have to look for something else.
>

devfs is a solution to a different problem. i stated as much in the point
you're replying to!!! Is this a serious reply, or are you just trying to
increase the anti-devfs post count...

> > NB: devfs benefits from increased dev_t aswell.
> >

> It is a complex mechanism to buy exactly what we had before.
> Violates KISS.
>

Have you looked at devfs???? it is not complex! and from pov of a driver
it's nearly exactly the same as the old way of registering major/minors..

the choice is what?? loads of scripts to monitor /proc? I wan't to set
policy on my /dev. Pretty clear with a userland daemon and one config file -
a morass if done with scripts.

>
> This has security implications... if I can somehow mount
> devfs with _my_
> machinery to handle permissions (needed for "random user plugs in USB
> floppy", perhaps), the system is screwed. Again, goes against KISS.
>

not a devfs issue. that's a much higher distribution issue.. ie disk group..
automounter.. the user mount option in fstab. devfs is just concerned with a
dynamic /dev - how you want to handle security is up to you, and you set
policy in a config file accordingly.

> As I see it, the problem(s) to be solved are much, much wider
> than just
> device naming.

true. but the convention at the moment is /dev, and that's not likely to
change in the near future. devfs just tries to improve /dev, not cure world
hunger. So let's hammer out what's right and wrong with devfs and leave the
rest alone.

-paul.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.058 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site