![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Richard Gooch wrote: > Yep, as I've long ago admitted, there are races in the old devfs > code, which couldn't be fixed without proper locking. And that's why > I've been wanting to add said locking for ages, and have been > frustrated at interruptions which delayed that work. And I'm very > happy to get the first cut of the new code released. BTW, new code still has both aforementioned races - detaching entries from the tree doesn't help with that. > That said, try to understand (before getting emotional and launching > off a tirade such as the one last week) that different people have > different priorities, and mine was to provide functionality first, and > worry about hostile attacks/exploits later. This is not unreasonable > if you consider that the initial target machines for devfs were: > - my personal boxes (which are not public machines) > - big-iron machines sitting behind a firewall > - small university group sitting behind a firewall (and I know where > all the users live:-) That's nice, but that had stopped being the case as soon as you've proposed devfs for inclusion into the tree... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:12 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||