Re: more devfs fun (Piled Higher and Deeper)

[Richard Gooch]

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: [e-mail]
Current:   [e-mail]