James Carlson wrote: > As a way to illustrate the point: suppose we had a new kind of SCSI > drive that included encryption. Suppose that drive required new > commands when first connected in order to establish the key in use > (the "security relationship" between the drive and host). Would we > need or want a new daemon to handle that? Or would it more naturally > be an extension of the existing devices framework?
Thats a good example and one I've actually been doing some thinking on. I think actually it might be a yes to both. We might need a new daemon to do some key management tasks but we would certainly be plugging into the existing devices framework. > What I'm concerned about here is that having a separate daemon to > manage a group of devices will likely lead to even more confusion in > the whole device allocation and permissions area. I agree with Jim here in general. I would have expected the WUSB to be adding a plugin to /usr/lib/devfsadm/linkmod/ The really important thing here is to make sure that all the existing frameworks continue to work since this is really a transport layer change. Compare this to adding IPsec below TCP, applications didn't have to change and IPsec is part of IP. -- Darren J Moffat
