From owner-freebsd-current Mon Oct 2 23: 6:17 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (flutter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66DBB37B502; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e9366CN45964; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:06:12 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: John Baldwin Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bpf "fix" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:19:27 PDT." Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 08:06:12 +0200 Message-ID: <45962.970553172@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , John Baldwin writes: >I stared at the bpf code some last week, and determined that the >extra make_dev() was in bpf's open() method in the non-devfs >case. As such, I have a rather simple patch. However, I don't >like a driver having to be aware of devfs. Does anyone have any >other (preferably cleaner) ways to fix this? Yes, I'm working on a patch for all pseudo devices so that they go away (entirely) when no longer used. That's the problem with cloning devices: you need a way to get rid of them again or you have a DoS on your hands. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | 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-current" in the body of the message