From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Jan 9 13:12:00 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14517 for freebsd-arch-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:12:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA14503 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:11:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA05417 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 22:11:21 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id WAA25128 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 22:11:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA24869 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:04:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@village.org) Received: from harmony [10.0.0.6] by rover.village.org with esmtp (Exim 1.71 #1) id 0zyT9d-0006AN-00; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:04:09 -0700 Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.1/8.8.3) with ESMTP id VAA59743; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:02:35 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199901080402.VAA59743@harmony.village.org> To: Archie Cobbs Subject: Re: DEVFS, the time has come... Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Jan 1999 19:01:48 PST." <199901080301.TAA03996@bubba.whistle.com> References: <199901080301.TAA03996@bubba.whistle.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 21:02:34 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <199901080301.TAA03996@bubba.whistle.com> Archie Cobbs writes: > In the case that no process has /dev/devfs open, devfs just does > it's normal "default" thing. I think that this is not desirable, but a mount option, as explained above (or my last message) would be preferable. If devfsd keeps dying, then if nothing else the user can remount /devfs with this option... I think it isn't desirable because it would allow devices to appear which local policy might otherwise want hidden, or only available in a chroot jail, etc. Or worse, if the devfsd dies for a chroot jail, undesirable devices may appear. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message