From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Jan 3 09:50:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18385 for freebsd-arch-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 09:50:04 -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 JAA18289 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 09:49:59 -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 SAA17255 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 18:49:30 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id SAA99122 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 18:49:30 +0100 (MET) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA05175 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 02:09:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA09107; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 11:07:24 +0100 (CET) To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mail-Followup-To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG X-To: Nate Williams X-cc: Chuck Robey , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DEVFS, the time has come... In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 02 Jan 1999 23:25:13 MST." <199901030625.XAA18116@mt.sri.com> Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 11:07:24 +0100 Message-ID: <9105.915358044@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <199901030625.XAA18116@mt.sri.com>, Nate Williams writes: >> > We must remember that rc.* is not an acceptible solution because >> > devices can come and go. >> >> Devices which come and go will need a daemon anyway to swing them >> into action (mount, ifconfig and so on). > >That's not true (think modems), and putting 'permission' policy into >mount and ifconfig is utter silliness. It sure is the case. And please try to read, in particular on the lines, we're not talking about putting permissions in ifconfig or mount but about a daemon which can amongst other things set the permissions and call ifconfig/mount. >Assuming we agree that a non-persistent DEVFS is acceptable, we still >need some way of setting policy, and so far the most common solution is >the rc.* solution, which is inadequate. No, the question is whether "chmod 777 /dev/null" will succeed or not. >> Do we want a "chmod 764 /dev/foo" to be persistent over reboot, >> despite the significant amount of code it takes, and the potential >> to pop out of the blue six months later and bite people ? > >Yes. And would you care to elaborate on why ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." "ttyv0" -- What UNIX calls a $20K state-of-the-art, 3D, hi-res color terminal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message