public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com>,
	Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Permissions don't stick on ConfigFS attributes
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:49:20 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <m18xyuvanj.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050820030117.GA775@kroah.com> (Greg KH's message of "Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:01:17 -0700")


I am confused.  I am beginning to see shades of the devfs problems coming up
again.  sysfs is built to be world readable by everyone who has it
mounted in their namespace.  Writable files in sysfs I have never
understood.

Given that we now have files which do not conform to one uniform
policy for everyone is there any reason why we do not want to allocate
a character device major number for all config values and dynamically
allocate a minor number for each config value?  Giving each config
value its own unique entry under /dev.  

Device nodes for each writable config value trivially handles
persistence and user policy and should be easy to implement in the
kernel.  We already have a policy engine in userspace, udev to handle
all of the chaos. 

Why do we need another mechanism?

Are device nodes out of fashion these days?

Eric

  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-08-22 22:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-08-20  0:50 [PATCH] Permissions don't stick on ConfigFS attributes Daniel Phillips
2005-08-20  1:22 ` Jon Smirl
2005-08-20  6:21   ` Daniel Phillips
2005-08-20  3:01 ` Greg KH
2005-08-20  3:23   ` Daniel Phillips
2005-08-20  3:33     ` Greg KH
2005-08-20  5:41       ` Daniel Phillips
2005-08-20  6:31   ` Joel Becker
2005-08-20  7:35     ` Daniel Phillips
2005-08-20 21:09   ` [PATCH] Permissions don't stick on ConfigFS attributes (revised) Daniel Phillips
2005-08-22  4:49   ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2005-08-22 19:44     ` [PATCH] Permissions don't stick on ConfigFS attributes Daniel Phillips

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=m18xyuvanj.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com \
    --to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=Joel.Becker@oracle.com \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=phillips@istop.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox