Re: stack protection
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> writes:
> 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.
Which means you need certain userspace tools for it to work at all and
if they fail you are screwed. Also how do you boot without a /dev? You
need a dummy dev containing any possible root device.
Now that you mention the mounting /dev going away this realy sucks.
> 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.
Doesn't sysfs basically do most of what devfs. Doesn't it know about
all devices?
MfG
Goswin
PS: I realy haven't looked into 2.5/2.6 kernels yet due to their lack
of compiling, booting or running for longer than a minute.
Reply to: