| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4B2810D6.9030309@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:42:30 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> CC: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...oscopio.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rubini@...dd.com, gregkh@...e.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] misc: use a proper range for minor number dynamic allocation On 12/15/2009 02:34 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >>>> >>>> The proposed solution uses the not yet reserved range from 64 to 127. If >>>> more devices are needed, we may push 64 to 16. >>>> >>> >>> Again, why not push these up above 256? >>> >> >> I merged this patch, but made a note-to-self that there are remaining >> open issues.. > > And nothing else happened. Can we revisit this please? > There seem to be people still worried about breaking userspace with majors/minors >= 256. I'm starting to think it is time to actually break userspace, and dynamic majors/minors seem as good as any place to start, especially since they by definition has to be managed by something like udev. We have had large dev_t for something like six years now, and most pieces of software isn't affected at all -- only the stuff that manages /dev. -hpa -- 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