linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 31/31] CAPI: Officially claim char major 191

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: <1264256908.3469.58.camel@violet>
Date:	Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:28:28 +0100
From:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:	isdn@...ux-pingi.de
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, i4ldeveloper@...tserv.isdn4linux.de,
	isdn4linux@...tserv.isdn4linux.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/31] CAPI: Officially claim char major 191

Hi Karsten,

> > > > I found no trace of this mysterious "pcl181" device, neither in-tree
> > > > nor out there in the wild. At the same time, the in-tree CAPI
> > > > middleware is using major 191 for many years now and obviously without
> > > > any conflict. Let's officially claim this major number.
> > >
> > > This is not the way it should have been done but whoever needs spanking
> > > got away with it years ago. Given that this seems the best way forward.
> > >
> > > With LANANA hat on
> > 
> > actually in the days of udev, the capifs is not really needed anymore.
> > The right choice would be to remove it. I haven't been enabling it since
> > years.
> > 
> So far I understand, the pppd capiplugin is the only user of it, so it could 
> be disabled for most users without any problems, as long they are not using
> PPP connections via CAPI.

PPP connection via CAPI works just fine without capifs. You just need
udev to create the device nodes.

> I never understand capifs very well, I think that it can be dropped because of 
> udev, but maybe need some adjustment in user space as well (make sure that
> udev did create the node before  open it).

I am pretty sure that I send a patch for that a long long time ago. I
haven been using CAPI + PPP without capifs.

> I f I remember correctly, here was some proposal  to replace the /dev/capi/ 
> nodes with  devpts, this would remove the complete capi_tty device major
> as well.

Don't remember anything like this. However extending the kernel code
with a CAPI PPP channel type would be better actually.

Regards

Marcel


--
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/