Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:28:38 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Current <current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Surviving /dev/null disappearance Message-ID: <461434A6.3080001@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4613D6F3.4080701@mac.com> References: <cb5206420704030216r44243573h7981c1e35ef7225@mail.gmail.com> <46128475.9060602@FreeBSD.org> <cb5206420704040151w3c4f32f7gfd4aa017d40a1199@mail.gmail.com> <4613D6F3.4080701@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Swiger wrote: > Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: >> On 4/3/07, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> Patch ld(1) to detect the condition and don't unlink the device node? >> >> Yes, but there has to be a generic solution, so that >> we don't reinvent the wheel for every one of the >> thousands apps that may do this. >> >> Isn't there some safety-net wrapper function that >> refuses to remove device nodes and maybe some other >> types of files? > > Why not set a filesystem flag like schg on device nodes under a devfs > tree...? Well, I suspect that it may cause ld(1) fail instead. What we want it to do is to not perform unlink(2) before open(2) when -o argument is device node. -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?461434A6.3080001>