> And the third part is the the filesystem interface which
> makes "/dev" appear, and maintaines persistance of ownership and modes
> across reboots, etc.
I'm unclear as to why persistence is a desired thing with USB peripherals,
because with USB, persistence is not guaranteed.
You make a good argument that devices need access control. But why should
we stick to inode-based policy mechanisms? Why not something more
advanced?
It just seems awfully silly to me that we're applying 1970s device access
and access control methods to 1990s (and later) devices. Isn't there a
better paradigm for this? The "device is a file" concept has its
advantages, but now I'm beginning to think it's more a hindrance than a
help, since the devices (and therefore the device nodes) can no longer be
depended upon to be persistent.
--Michael
-
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/