Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:35:04 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Current <current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Surviving /dev/null disappearance Message-ID: <20070405203504.GA11297@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> In-Reply-To: <461434A6.3080001@FreeBSD.org> References: <cb5206420704030216r44243573h7981c1e35ef7225@mail.gmail.com> <46128475.9060602@FreeBSD.org> <cb5206420704040151w3c4f32f7gfd4aa017d40a1199@mail.gmail.com> <4613D6F3.4080701@mac.com> <461434A6.3080001@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Maxim, Andrew, Chuck, On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 04:28:38PM -0700, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > >>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. Do you have any idea why ld(1) doesn't merely use open(2) with O_TRUNC, instead of unlinking the file ? Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070405203504.GA11297>