| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:54:39 -0700 From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartmann <greg@...ah.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove broken by design and by implementation devtmpfs maintenance disaster > I don't understand. Udev applies the final policy including > permissions/ownership, just as before. There is no differrence. It's > just that you can bring up a box without complex userspace to > bootstrap /dev. And that's a big win on its own. udev is too complex to use? That sounds like a userspace bug. This I guess is where I am baffled. The argument for devtmpfs always seem to boil down to: udev sucks let's write some kernel code instead. I have been trying to ask for a long time why we can't just fix udev to not suck. > And things like > "modprobe loop; losetup /dev/loop0" will just work, which it doesn't > with todays async udev. Again, please make yourself familiar how > things work, and what the problems are. I guess I don't understand why modprobe loop; losetup /dev/loop0 is an interesting case. When you can just as easily do: modprobe loop; udevadm settle; losetup /dev/loop0. Eric -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists