Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268581AbUJKAGq (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:06:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268582AbUJKAGq (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:06:46 -0400 Received: from hacksaw.org ([66.92.70.107]:21918 "EHLO hacksaw.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268581AbUJKAGn (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:06:43 -0400 Message-Id: <200410110006.i9B06aF9019868@hacksaw.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.0 06/18/2004 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "J.A. Magallon" cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: udev: what's up with old /dev ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:25:46 -0000." <1097450746l.5993l.0l@werewolf.able.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:06:36 -0400 From: Hacksaw Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 840 Lines: 22 >I don't think it is needed. There is no problem (i am thinking on rootles >nodes and PXE and so on...) on building a simple initrd with /dev/console, >/dev/null I'm looking for no initrd. I'm not a fan of them. It seems like having to use an electric drill to start your car. I like the idea that someone could accidentally scribble all over /dev, and on reboot the system would just rebuild it. It makes /dev less of a vulnerability. -- Sleepy, Dopey, Sneezy, Bashful, Grumpy, Happy, Doc Just in case you'd forgotten... http://www.hacksaw.org -- http://www.privatecircus.com -- KB1FVD - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/