In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tim Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: I'm glad you brought this up... I'd like to see /dev/devctl made mode 600
: instead of 644 because it does not look very robust and because only one
: devctl can be open at a time.
644 is the right permissions to
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >I have to say that the ownership issue has been a pet peeve of mine for
> >some time: I would really like the kernel to know about exactly two magic
> >id values: uid 0 (suser uid, default uid, default devfs owner), and gid 0
> >(default gid, default devfs owner). Hard-
Marcin Cieslak wrote:
>
> What's wrong with having /etc/minor_perm et consortes
> a la Solaris? With sensible kernel defaults to allow
> booting without your favourite root partition.
What's wrong with just having /dev?
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe f
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robe
> rt Watson writes:
>
> >> > No, the default permissions are specified in the driver source code
> >> > via make_dev().
> >>
> >> The drivers only get the magic numbers for uids and gids from a central
> >> fil
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robe
rt Watson writes:
>> > No, the default permissions are specified in the driver source code
>> > via make_dev().
>>
>> The drivers only get the magic numbers for uids and gids from a central
>> file. This is bad enough. I think all devices should have ownersh
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:50:00PM +0100, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
>
> What's wrong with having /etc/minor_perm et consortes
> a la Solaris?
Nothing, and we already have the equivalent. You've missed the point
under discussion, which is the value of the "sensible kernel
defaults" being wrong for a
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > No, the default permissions are specified in the driver source code
> > via make_dev().
>
> The drivers only get the magic numbers for uids and gids from a central
> file. This is bad enough. I think all devices should have ownership
> root:wheel and
What's wrong with having /etc/minor_perm et consortes
a la Solaris? With sensible kernel defaults to allow
booting without your favourite root partition.
--
<< Marcin Cieslak // [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>
msg46925/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:16:49AM -0800, Kip Macy wrote:
> > Sorry, if I'm repeating something already said, but
> > the tone of your mail would indicate that I'm not.
> >
> > This doesn't sound like an intrinsic limitation of
> > devfs, just an issue w
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
>On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Tim Robbins wrote:
>
>> I'm glad you brought this up... I'd like to see /dev/devctl made mode 600
>> instead of 644 because it does not look very robust and because only one
>> devctl can be open at a time.
>>
>> The two othe
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kris Kennaway writes:
>
>On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:16:49AM -0800, Kip Macy wrote:
>> This doesn't sound like an intrinsic limitation of
>> devfs, just an issue with how it is structured now.
s/structured/used by drivers/
>> There should just be a central file for
Kip Macy wrote:
> Sorry, if I'm repeating something already said, but
> the tone of your mail would indicate that I'm not.
>
> This doesn't sound like an intrinsic limitation of
> devfs, just an issue with how it is structured now.
> There should just be a central file for all the
> devices which
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:16:49AM -0800, Kip Macy wrote:
> Sorry, if I'm repeating something already said, but
> the tone of your mail would indicate that I'm not.
>
> This doesn't sound like an intrinsic limitation of
> devfs, just an issue with how it is structured now.
> There should just be a
Sorry, if I'm repeating something already said, but
the tone of your mail would indicate that I'm not.
This doesn't sound like an intrinsic limitation of
devfs, just an issue with how it is structured now.
There should just be a central file for all the
devices which devfs sucks in at build (or m
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Tim Robbins wrote:
> I'm glad you brought this up... I'd like to see /dev/devctl made mode 600
> instead of 644 because it does not look very robust and because only one
> devctl can be open at a time.
>
> The two other security/reliability bugs I can see are that the async
>
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Something that needs to be addressed before 5.0 is the insecure
> default permissions on many devices. For example, on my system, the
> following devices have insecure permissions on 5.0 (but not on 4.x
> with the default MAKEDEV settings):
>
> crw-r--r
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:03:06PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Something that needs to be addressed before 5.0 is the insecure
> default permissions on many devices. For example, on my system, the
> following devices have insecure permissions on 5.0 (but not on 4.x
> with the default MAKEDEV se
17 matches
Mail list logo
