this argument is pathetic... a philosophical holy war from a bunch of
voices with strict opnions defining their arguments and not presenting
a clear logical argument for why this is such a horrid design to
introduce in the kernel...
Excerpts from internet.computing.linux-kernel: 7-Oct-99 Re: devfs again,
(was RE: U.. by Horst von Brand@inf.utfs
>
> "Jakma, Paul" <Paul.Jakma@compaq.com> said:
> > > > the permissions in a config file, exact syntax i forget,
> > > but something like:
> > > >
> > > > /dev/sd/c0b1t3u0 PERM root.disk 664
> > > > /dev/sd PERM root.disk 660
> > > >
> > > > etc.. and all your SCSI disks will automatically get these
> > > perm's when
> > > > they're created, except for disk bus1id3, which get's
> > > special perms's.. etc.
> > > >
> > > > now that's nice. Much easier to admin, which leads to
> > > better security, etc.
>
>
> This is _horrible_. Suddenly there are files whose attributes aren't fixed
> by chmod(1)/chown(1), but by a magic file.
>
> Again. The way Unix is designed, permanent information about files resides
> in the filesystem. Another basic Unix design premise is that devices are
> files. So their attributes reside in the filesystem. Anything else breaks
> much ("tar cf dev.tar /dev", ..., "tar xf dev.tar /dev" doesn't work
> anymore (but it looks like it does!); can't dump/restore /dev; ...). It
> might also have _very_ serious security implications (what if the magic
> devfs.conf file goes missing, or is clobbered?)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/