From owner-freebsd-current Mon May 15 16:10:48 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id QAA19841 for current-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 1995 16:10:48 -0700 Received: from linus.demon.co.uk (linus.demon.co.uk [158.152.10.220]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA19830 for ; Mon, 15 May 1995 16:10:40 -0700 Received: (from mark@localhost) by linus.demon.co.uk (8.6.11/8.6.9) id AAA03909; Tue, 16 May 1995 00:10:16 +0100 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 00:10:16 +0100 From: Mark Valentine Message-Id: <199505152310.AAA03909@linus.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Bruce Evans's message of May 16, 7:45am X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: Bruce Evans , current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: MAKEDEV and device permissions Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > From: Bruce Evans > Date: Tue 16 May, 1995 > Subject: Re: MAKEDEV and device permissions > You still have to be aware of the umasks unless everything is chmod'ed. > I think chmod'ing everything would be too verbose. I like this self-documenting verbosity ;-) . > >Rod showed me a candidate patch which seemed to confuse umasks with > >modes (in favour of modes :-), which resulted in some calls to "umask > >37" and some to "umask 026" to do the same thing... > > I started removing the execute bits from the umasks since they are > irrelevant for devices (mknod masks them anyway) and wrong for directories. Ah, I didn't realise it was deliberate. Consistent use of umask in this way would be reasonable. I still favour chmod'ing, though. I can still think of messy bits such as where control devices are created with different permissions from the standard devices. Do you default the standard devices to rely on the umask, yet use chmod for the control devices? Do you set another temporary umask for the control devices (unlikely)? Without explicit chmods for everything, these places at least need a comment saying "I know what I'm doing here". Mark.