Re: stack protection
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:41, Brian May wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 07:16:46PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> > Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> writes:
> > > Devfs is getting less support now, it might not be the best time to
> > > start depending on it.
> >
> > Indeed, it's looking likely that GregKH's `udev' will replace devfs
> > sometime in the future.
>
> Dare I ask the obvious question: what is udev? Why is it better then
> devfs?
A paper on udev was presented at OLS this year, at the URL below you can find
a copy in PDF format. Basically it is a way of providing some of the
features of devfs but based around using hotplug to create device nodes using
mknod under a regular directory. So there is no mountable /dev.
http://archive.linuxsymposium.org/ols2003/Proceedings/
As for why it's better than udev. There have been bugs in devfs in the past
related to race conditions. Also devfs requires that the kernel knows about
all the device nodes, whether this is a bug or an excellent feature is a
matter of opinion.
I would prefer that devfs was kept as it's worked well for me. But that it
seems that things are moving away from it.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: