Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 15:18:42 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com>, terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert), current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FS PATCHES: THE NEXT GENERATION Message-ID: <319.823875522@critter.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Feb 1996 05:11:49 PST." <19888.823871509@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > hmm but devfs might be compulsory :) > > file somewhere, and I'm sure the problem isn't insurmountable. To NOT > do this and force our users to have to specifically edit chmod, mknods > or rm commands into /etc/rc in order to preserve their changes to /dev > across reboots, well, the phrase "a serious public reaming" comes to > mind when I contemplate the outcome. > I beg to differ the other way here. I belive that persistence in any other form of a written policy is wrong and a security flaw. I want to be able to define a policy for permissions in /dev, and no form is more unix-like and suitable than chmod 644 tty* chown root.dev disk/* ... Remember, just because we always did it this way doesn't mean that it is smart. Ken Thompson called /dev "A pretty gross hack" at the EUUG conference in London more than five years ago... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?319.823875522>