From owner-freebsd-current Tue Nov 19 12:22:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2705137B401 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:22:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22AAD43EA3 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:22:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.6/8.12.5) with SMTP id gAJKMUBF019519; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:22:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:22:30 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Bruce Evans , Kris Kennaway , kip@eventdriven.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Device permissions with DEVFS In-Reply-To: <25060.1037735737@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , Robe > rt Watson writes: > > >> > No, the default permissions are specified in the driver source code > >> > via make_dev(). > >> > >> The drivers only get the magic numbers for uids and gids from a central > >> file. This is bad enough. I think all devices should have ownership > >> root:wheel and mode 0600, but that would increase the problems with > >> non-persistent attributes. devfs(8) may be able to handle this now. > > > >I have to say that the ownership issue has been a pet peeve of mine for > >some time: I would really like the kernel to know about exactly two magic > >id values: uid 0 (suser uid, default uid, default devfs owner), and gid 0 > >(default gid, default devfs owner). Hard-coding of other non-0 values in > >the kernel leads to many potential (and real) problems. > > I think we should stick to the current slightly "hackish" way, possibly > with the modification that the security-officer gang gets to rule what > exact m/o/g devices in the FreeBSD cvs tree should have. I'm not suggesting we change to this model at this point, or at any particular point in the future, it's just a pet peeve that someday I'd like to address :-). Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message