Messages in this thread | | | From | "Jakma, Paul" <> | Subject | RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device allocation) | Date | Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:47:20 +0100 |
| |
> > 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/
| |