dev nodes with make_dev() in a devfs-compatable way by supplying names.
This doesn't fit into a compile-time scheme like DEV_DRIVER_MODULE,
especially since the cdevsw[] array's days are numbered.
devsw_module_handler() indirectly and not use the chain arguments. To
eliminate this indirection via that function (which does nothing now)
without duplicating a modevent handler into all the routines that don't
presently have one, supply a NOP (do nothing, return OK) routine which
is functionally equivalent to what's there now. This is a hack and is
still wrong, because there doesn't appear to be anything to reclaim
resources on an unload of a module with one of these in it. I'm not
sure whether to make the NOP handler refuse a MOD_UNLOAD event or what.
file object. Also explain some possible directions to re-implement it --
I'm not sure it should be, given the minimal application use. (Other
than having the debugger automatically access the symbols for a process,
the main use I'd found was with some minor accounting ability, but _that_
depends on it being in the filesystem space; an ioctl access method would
be useless in that case.)
This is a code-less change; only a comment has been added.
phk 95/03/10 00:24:10
Modified: gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc_int final.c
Since we are in the gcc bashing mood anyway: Add two changes for
basic-block profiling:
1. use a .stabs(25) symbol to link all the data structures together
with. The regular method isn't safe for the kernel.
2. add a BB before the prologue and add a BB after the epilogue,
this alows us to find the length of any counted BB. This is a
cheap and somewhat reasonable measure of actual cost.
Note #1 was removed in rev 1.4.
Document the options available for the ata driver.
Disconnect the atapi devices from the old wd driver to avoid conflicts
(they will go away at some point anyways)
continue doing it despite objections by me (the principal author).
Note that this doesn't fix the real problem -- the real problem is generally
bad setup by ignorant users, and education is the right way to fix it.
So while this doesn't actually solve the prolem mentioned in the complaint
(since it's still possible to do it via other methods, although they mostly
involve a bit more complicity), and there are better methods to do this,
nobody was willing or able to provide me with a real world example that
couldn't be worked around using the existing permissions and group
mechanism. And therefore, security by removing features is the method of
the day.
I only had three applications that used it, in any event. One of them would
have made debugging easier, but I still haven't finished it, and won't
now, so it doesn't really matter.
