Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 02 Jan 1999 00:13:24 -0700
From:      Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
To:        freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: DEVFS, the time has come... 
Message-ID:  <199901020713.AAA09699@harmony.village.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 Jan 1999 14:35:03 %2B0800." <199901020635.OAA03578@spinner.netplex.com.au> 
References:  <199901020635.OAA03578@spinner.netplex.com.au>  

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199901020635.OAA03578@spinner.netplex.com.au> Peter Wemm writes:
[trimmed, an excellent recap of the past discussions]
> Re chroot jails..  Would mounting an instance, cleaning it out and then 
> doing a 'mount -u -r /my/chroot/jail/dev' cut it?  (making it readonly 
> would prevent changes, devices appearing, etc.)

I withdraw my objection to having devfs add/remove devices from some
file systems.  I didn't even think about chroot jails.  Accessing
devices in chroot jails is useful enough for an interesting number of
cases to allow that.

> Yes, we need a devfs.  Yes, it should be on by default.  I prefer
> non-persistance, especially if measures are taken to make it easier to 
> cope with.  I would prefer to not have to put policy into drivers, but 
> some will be unavoidable - /dev/null for example.  Perhaps classifying 
> nodes and having a group of settings might do the trick.

I agree with this sentiment.  I also agree that we need devfs more
than we need to have persistance.  So long as there is a way to change
the default settings of a class on the fly, then this will work for
the examples I've been giving: new pccard device as well as a mouse
appear/disappear.  If I wanted to grant ownership to the console
devices to one person, I'd just set the defaults to that person.  Then
it doesn't matter.

While rough around the edges, I think what Peter has outlined will be
better enough to move forward w/o persistance.  Any discussion of this
in the larger context needs to have something that is that clear and
shows that most cases are covered well enough and leave the rest for
devfs v2 if the well enough devolves over time and needs fixing.

Warner

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901020713.AAA09699>