From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 28 9:46:31 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52D437B416; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:46:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fASHjAV36657; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:45:10 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: mjacob@feral.com Cc: Robert Watson , Peter Wemm , Dima Dorfman , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anybody working on devd? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:41:00 PST." Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:45:10 +0100 Message-ID: <36655.1006969510@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , Matthew Jacob writes: >> Generally speaking, it seems desirable the devices would appear in /dev >> with conservative permissions, and then userland policy might adjust those >> permissions to be more liberal based on files in /etc, and so on. > >I think that if this is the case, there's no point in device drivers knowing >about permissions at all, and shouldn't be even *allowed* to set them. Well, true in the theoretical sense, but it makes a lot of sense for picobsd like systems that they do. As long as the default policy is (ie: becomes) configurable (see my other email), it is not harmful that the drivers gives a first stab at mode/owner/group. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message