Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 6 Nov 2001 00:14:41 -0700 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: more devfs fun (Piled Higher and Deeper) |
| |
Alexander Viro writes: > > > 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.
Which "both"? You sent quite a few messages, listing more than two races. I'm still wading through the list.
> > 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...
Marked CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL...
Regards,
Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca - 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/
|  |