Re: UUIDs (and devfs and major/minor numbers)
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH (allbery@kf8nh.apk.net)
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:28:31 -0400
In message <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906181254210.17491-100000@sasami.anime.net>, Dan Hol
lis writes:
+-----
| On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
| > In message <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906171836420.31970-100000@sasami.anime.net>, Dan
| Hol
| > lis writes:
| > | Well see, we have people who dont want procfs *or* devfs. Their solution
| > | would probably be to pollute /dev with a whole new group of maj/min
| > | devices just to hold socket permissions.
| >
| > I would think more like:
| > struct sockperms s;
| > s.proto = IPPROTO_UDP;
| > s.port = 53;
| > s.owner = getpwnam("named")->pw_uid;
| > ioctl(rawsocket, SIOCSETPERMS, &s);
|
| Is this really any better than a sockfs? You already need to keep socket
+--->8
I didn't say it was; I was responding to the comment about non-sockfs
implementations for those who think non-"filesystem" filesystems are evil
(which concept I find difficult to comprehend). But device nodes for socket
permissions are just *silly*.
--
brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net
system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu
carnegie mellon / electrical and computer engineering KF8NH
We are Linux. Resistance is an indication that you missed the point.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/