Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 12:08:06 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: phk@critter.tfs.com, wollman@lcs.mit.edu, current@FreeBSD.ORG, imp@village.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/ccd ccd.c src/sys/dev/vn vn.c src/sys/sys conf.h src/sys/i386/isa fd.c mcd.c scd.c wcd.c wd.c wt.c sOR Message-ID: <199607311908.MAA02568@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <20261.838411794@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Jul 26, 96 01:09:54 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > There are a couple of fine points still not resolved. > > There is >still< no way to generally specify a policy: > > "Make all disks foo.bar mode 0640" > > You wouldn't be losing anything though - we don't have this now! :-) > You could still make the foo.bar devices underneath and chmod them > 640, which is not as elegant, no, but still gives the "traditional" > UNIX user a solution which makes sense. I wouldn't leave this as a > sticking point since the proposal solves so many of the problems > people have been complaining about so far, it should just be done. Actually, for a real "markup" FS, you could do this automatically by creating a placeholder (empty file/directory, depending on overlay type) whenever a chmod/chown/etc. takes place. > > Why would we even care about the type of node apart from "Directory" or > > "Not Directory" ? Ie, we could mount devfs on a FS that doesn't support > > c/b devs at all (msdos, hfs ...) > > I suppose that's true too! If you found a regular file named fd0a > with perms 700 then you'd just borrow the perms and ignore the type? Yes. Death to the specfs! Death to the struct fileops! Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607311908.MAA02568>