Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Freeman Liu wrote: >> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>> Freeman Liu wrote: >>>> Gary Winiger wrote: >>>>>> Yes. Visibility and stability of /dev/dsp will be promoted in the >>>>>> following phases. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> When you say that only the root user can access /dev/dsp, do you >>>>>>> mean >>>>>>> to say that the underlying device file is owned by root and has >>>>>>> permission 600? Or does the device's driver make explicit >>>>>>> permission >>>>>>> checks? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> It is owned by root and has permission 600. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What suid 0 programs are required that are not present in S10? >>>>> >>>> I am not sure if I understand you correct. I guess you think that >>>> since the 600 permission, there must >>>> be some suid 0 applications to use it. Actually, there is no such >>>> applications, this file will only be >>>> used by sadasupport. We make the permission 600 to avoid normal >>>> users to open it. >>>> Correct me if I misunderstand you. >>> >>> If its only used internally, there was a way (IIRC) to create a >>> "ddi-internal-pathname" so that only in-kernel components could see >>> the node. I forgot the actual call, but IIRC the keyboard/mouse >>> code on SPARC does this. >>> >>> That might be a preferable solution, or at least worth investigation. >> Actually, we have thought about that solution. The main reason that >> we take the current approach is that /dev/dsp will be promoted to >> public interface in the following phases and this approach will make >> the migration smooth with only trivial change. > > From my perspective, if the /dev/dsp interface is private, and has no > consumers in userland today, then it is very very wrong to publish it. > > Its not hard to change the call to ddi_create_internal_pathname (or > whatever) into ddi_create_minor_node() in the future, when you are > ready to make it public. > > Otherwise, if the interface is stable enough that you think it is > ready to be made public *today*, then I'd like to see that done *now*, > rather than putting the node out there, hoping you won't change it, > and if you do, that nobody uses it. (In other words, either commit to > the public interface, or don't expose it. Pick one.) After all these discussion, I feel the rule here and I accept your suggestion.
Best regards Freeman > > -- Garrett >> >> Best regards >> Freeman >>> >>> -- Garrett >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Freeman >>>>> Gary.. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
