linux-kernel - Re: regarding major number of block extended devt

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

Message-ID: <48BEB98C.8030303@kernel.org>
Date:	Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:21:32 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	device@...ana.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: regarding major number of block extended devt

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> But just allocating a big bucket of device numbers and throw it all into
> a pot semirandomly is likely to cause more damage, not less.

To use ext devt, the system has to use udev for device numbers.  As long
as udev is used, the major number doesn't matter.  In addition, breaking
drastically (e.g. can't find the device) seems better than subtle
failure (e.g. weird partition number calculation based on the
traditional minor number scheme) and CONFIG_DEBUG_BLOCK_EXT_DEVT is
exactly aimed at making breakages obvious.

I don't really see there's much to gain by sharing the original major
numbers.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/