On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Yep, as I've long ago admitted, there are races in the old devfs
> code, which couldn't be fixed without proper locking. And that's why
> I've been wanting to add said locking for ages, and have been
> frustrated at interruptions which delayed that work. And I'm very
> happy to get the first cut of the new code released.
BTW, new code still has both aforementioned races - detaching entries
from the tree doesn't help with that.
> That said, try to understand (before getting emotional and launching
> off a tirade such as the one last week) that different people have
> different priorities, and mine was to provide functionality first, and
> worry about hostile attacks/exploits later. This is not unreasonable
> if you consider that the initial target machines for devfs were:
> - my personal boxes (which are not public machines)
> - big-iron machines sitting behind a firewall
> - small university group sitting behind a firewall (and I know where
> all the users live:-)
That's nice, but that had stopped being the case as soon as you've proposed
devfs for inclusion into the tree...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 21:00:29 EST