Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) )

Horst von Brand (vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl)
Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:57:07 -0300


danielt@digi.com said:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Shawn Leas wrote:
> > From: Stephen Frost [mailto:sfrost@mail.snowman.net]

> > >> So why not simply let the driver decide upon it's nodes' permissions?
> > > Because I want user joe to own /dev/fd0?

> > So chown it!!!!! Devfsd gives you persistance. Don't
> > give me that "till I reboot" bullshit.

> And if it is that important to you, do not trust devfsd,
> put the chown in rc.local!

Or forget about devfs at all.

> > >> This is a straw man argument. You take an easy target, knock it down,
> > >> and it really doesn't mean anything, but you claim victory. Shame.

> > > Having to have a configuration file for permissions is not a good
> > >thing. Permissions go with files, they don't go in a config file
> > >somewhere.

> > Configurable with defaults, and your changes are persistant.
> > You absolutely have not read the FAQ, or you are lieing
> > intentionally.

> I still think persistence of permissions is a big mistake.

Why?

> If you do something stupid like chowning files in /dev instead
> of adding the users you want to access them to the groups
> that can, you deserve all of the pain and suffering that goes along
> with that choice. Regardless of devfs.

What if I want some users access to /dev/sda4 (happens to be a Zip drive),
but not to all disks? What if I want some users to access /dev/fd0, but a
possibly disjoint set from the above? This is real, not a stupid choice,
and it needs persistence. No defaults will do (on my other machine
/dev/sda4 is /usr).

-- 
Horst von Brand                             vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl
Casilla 9G, Viņa del Mar, Chile                               +56 32 672616

- 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/