Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:20:30 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: mknod, devfs and FreeBSD Message-ID: <20070129142029.GA45960@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <eeef1a4c0701290507n1aa08ebby380cc688f23ed09e@mail.gmail.com> References: <eeef1a4c0701260840pef414f9h3e76fce789c06386@mail.gmail.com> <20070126174826.GA13730@xor.obsecurity.org> <eeef1a4c0701261505g7258ae9cx7bcb70a825fb8c88@mail.gmail.com> <20070126234756.GA19420@xor.obsecurity.org> <eeef1a4c0701280756m3014f3acu15398d43e7a309e2@mail.gmail.com> <20070128184925.GB61662@xor.obsecurity.org> <eeef1a4c0701290507n1aa08ebby380cc688f23ed09e@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:07:25PM +0000, Freminlins wrote: > Kris, >=20 > On 28/01/07, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > > > > > >I not understand this no sentence :) >=20 >=20 > Sorry, I didn't read what I typed. I meant to type "Was the effect of this > considered at all?" Yes it was. The benefits of dynamic devices were considered to outweight the downsides of having to mount a devfs instance. > What reasons, other than cosmetic, do you have for not wanting to do > >this? >=20 >=20 > Well, I am sure you would agree it is simpler to mknod for a small subset= of > /dev than to mount a devfs. Also, it means I have to migrate my existing = set > up which works perfectly as it is. Actually I disagree. Once you write the simple devfs ruleset it is a single command to instantiate a new /dev. You don't have to worry about making each individual device node N times and possibly making a mistake. Of course you probably have a script to do this now, but that just means you need to adjust your script as part of your migration strategy. > It isn't just cosmetic, it really is more awkward than running mknod. I t= ake > your point that there's no technical reason not to do this, but it isn't > pretty. To put it bluntly, it's something you're just going to have to get over :-) Kris --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFvgKtWry0BWjoQKURAnnnAJ4vb1Q6nMmSY3pLuNQb+ivSXRHvbACgmXV+ KLJqiF+Hi0epKCogWYpDH1c= =g2X1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070129142029.GA45960>