Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) ) | Date | Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:57:07 -0300 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
danielt@digi.com said: > On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Shawn Leas wrote: > > From: Stephen Frost [mailto:sfrost@mail.snowman.net]
> > >> So why not simply let the driver decide upon it's nodes' permissions? > > > Because I want user joe to own /dev/fd0?
> > So chown it!!!!! Devfsd gives you persistance. Don't > > give me that "till I reboot" bullshit.
> And if it is that important to you, do not trust devfsd, > put the chown in rc.local!
Or forget about devfs at all.
> > >> This is a straw man argument. You take an easy target, knock it down, > > >> and it really doesn't mean anything, but you claim victory. Shame.
> > > Having to have a configuration file for permissions is not a good > > >thing. Permissions go with files, they don't go in a config file > > >somewhere.
> > Configurable with defaults, and your changes are persistant. > > You absolutely have not read the FAQ, or you are lieing > > intentionally.
> I still think persistence of permissions is a big mistake.
Why?
> If you do something stupid like chowning files in /dev instead > of adding the users you want to access them to the groups > that can, you deserve all of the pain and suffering that goes along > with that choice. Regardless of devfs.
What if I want some users access to /dev/sda4 (happens to be a Zip drive), but not to all disks? What if I want some users to access /dev/fd0, but a possibly disjoint set from the above? This is real, not a stupid choice, and it needs persistence. No defaults will do (on my other machine /dev/sda4 is /usr). -- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
- 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/
| |