Ulrich Spoerlein <gmail.com!uspoerl...@agora.rdrop.com> wrote: > I cannot really comment on the devfs(4) design issues, > and quite frankly it hasn't bothered my thus far.
It evidently inconvenienced the OP. > Just another little quirk you get to remember. If we followed that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we would eliminate POLA entirely. > > IMO it violates POLA, if not POSIX, for open(2) to succeed when > > applied to a name which, according to readdir(2), does not > > exist; and it is suboptimal to have "stealth" drivers whose > > availability for use cannot be discovered by examining /dev. > > You forgot directories with --x permissions. You can open many > files inside them, but readdir(2) will get you nowhere. So this > is a poor standard by which to judge devfs(4) device cloning. There are at least two problems with that analysis: * /dev does not ordinarily have --x permissions. Even if I amended the principle to allow for that case, it would not affect its application to this case. * readdir works for root, even in directories with --x permissions. For example: $ mkdir test $ touch test/file $ ls -la test total 4 drwxr-xr-x 2 perryh perryh 512 Jan 10 15:39 . drwxr-xr-x 3 perryh perryh 512 Jan 10 15:39 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 perryh perryh 0 Jan 10 15:39 file $ chmod 111 test $ ls -ld test d--x--x--x 2 perryh perryh 512 Jan 10 15:39 test $ ls -la test total 0 ls: test: Permission denied # ls -la test total 4 d--x--x--x 2 perryh perryh 512 Jan 10 15:39 . drwxr-xr-x 3 perryh perryh 512 Jan 10 15:39 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 perryh perryh 0 Jan 10 15:39 file _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"