Alexander Viro writes:
>
>
> 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.
Which "both"? You sent quite a few messages, listing more than two
races. I'm still wading through the list.
> > 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...
Marked CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL...
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
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