From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 9 16:20:50 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B06106566C for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 16:20:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2423E8FC21 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 16:20:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m39GHLlh077606; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:17:21 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:18:16 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20080409.101816.1824031653.imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhein@timing.com From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <18428.59782.318085.53492@gromit.timing.com> References: <40914.1207681578@critter.freebsd.dk> <20080409.044228.-201314267.imp@bsdimp.com> <18428.59782.318085.53492@gromit.timing.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, phk@phk.freebsd.dk Subject: Re: tt_ioctl X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:20:50 -0000 In message: <18428.59782.318085.53492@gromit.timing.com> John E Hein writes: : M. Warner Losh wrote at 04:42 -0600 on Apr 9, 2008: : > I think I may have originally added the code that John proposed to the : > tsc tree (or maybe just my private tree when I was investigating the : > problem for others at TSC). : : It wasn't checked in the local tree - I guess we came up with it : independently (assume you're talking about hooking up t_ioctl?). Yes. I almost just quietly committed it to FreeBSD at the time, but I got busy on another project and never got back to it. Maybe I should have just done it and saw if phk noticed :-) : > I think it is the right way to go, and that the ioctl vs security : > argument is a bit specious. : : Well, I could go either way on this issue - 'specious' might be a bit : too strong. I could see issues with pass-through device-specific : ioctls on tty devs - especially due to the fact that it's a tty device : is somewhat obscured in the case of ucom children. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here... Warner