Matthew N. Dodd scribbled this message on Sep 20:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Chuck Robey wrote:
> > But it was to the subject on the Subject: line, Julian. We know what side
> > you're on, but there are 2 sides to the argument. Isn't there some way
> > that it can be set up to *optionally* have permission persistence?
>
> Seems like a devfsd using the file monitoring hooks would work; you'd only
> update the persistent store if you were running devfsd. devfsd would read
> the store and init /dev with the contents. I think the only issue that
> would involve thinking would be whiteouts (and the actual devfsd code of
> course.)
one thing that HAS to happen is the fast that some devices CAN'T "appeare"
until the devfsd says it can, unless we force a very restrictive permision
on all devices (600 or something similar) otherwise we will have security
wholes up the wazoo... don't forget about this... a devfsd daemon is
definately the way to go...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 408 975 9651
Cu Networking
"The soul contains in itself the event that shall presently befall it.
The event is only the actualizing of its thought." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
