linux-kernel - Re: Dynamic major/minor numbers (or dropping them completely)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070803220752.GU21089@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 3 Aug 2007 23:07:52 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc:	Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu <maxdamage@...din.ro>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic major/minor numbers (or dropping them completely)

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 05:13:51PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> You're correct that dynamic major/minor numbers are sufficient for most 
> purposes, but embedded users really need their static numbers.  As for 
> ripping out major/minor numberings, that's a non-starter.  Too much of our 
> device management infrastructure is based around this numbering scheme, and 
> there isn't really anything wrong with it to justify breaking everything in 
> the change.
> 
> As a rule of thumb, if you ever find yourself wondering why we still 
> support doing statically something we can now do dynamically, the answer is 
> generally that doing it dynamically sucks for embedded.

And not only embedded.  I'm quite happy _not_ running udev on anything
I have root on, except for one test box set exactly to make sure that
patches do not break things for udev-infested boxen.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/