ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) writes: > Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Your description is usesless. > > It needs to detail exactly what breaks, what regressions and why. > All I see below is hand waving. > > We need to know why this does not work so someone does not come in and try > this again. Or so that someone can fix this and then try again. > > You do not include that kind of information in your commit log. > > Calling mknod to create device nodes can not be widespread. There are > not that many privileged processes and calling mknod outside of being > a specialed process like udev is broken. > > Therefore I refute your assertion that this is a widespread issue. > > > I expect somewhere there is a reasonable argument for reverting this > change on the basis that it causes a regression. You have not made it. > > Until that time I am going to oppose this revert because your > justfication for the revert is lacking. > > > It has never been the case that mknod on a device node will guarantee > that you even can open the device node. The applications that regress > are broken. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be bug compatible, but we darn > well should document very clearly the bugs we are being bug compatible > with. > Further from what I have seen of this issue, there is a compelling case that what the applications that are broken what what is enabled by allowing mknod to succeed. So we absolutely need a good description of what is going on, because at best a revert to fix today's breaking is temporary until userspace gets their bugs fixed. Eric
