[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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...



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.145 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site