jeffrey@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Jeffrey L Bromberger) (04/02/91)
OK. Here's a simple question. Unfortunately, I can't think of a good
answer to it.
We're running 4.3BSD (pretty much vanilla) on a VAX (780). In /dev,
there is a node for *every* piece of hardware. Every tty, disk, tape,
etc. has an entry.
So, how come no entry for the DEUNA ethernet card? I realize it's
configured as a pseudo-device, but ptys (also pseudodevices) have
entries! Doesn't this go against the policy of "everything has a
filename"?
Many thanks in advance for any insight you can send my way.
j
--
Jeffrey L. Bromberger
System Operator---City College of New York---Science Computing Facility
jeffrey@sci.ccny.cuny.edu jeffrey@ccnysci.BITNET
Anywhere!{cmcl2,philabs,phri}!ccnysci!jeffreytorek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr1.203925.19204@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> jeffrey@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Jeffrey L Bromberger) writes: >So, how come no [/dev] entry for the DEUNA ethernet card? I realize it's >configured as a pseudo-device ... Actually, it is configured as a regular `device': device de0 at uba? csr 0174510 vector deintr (`vector deintr' really belongs elsewhere, but this is a completely different topic). The argument against a /dev entry begins with `what would you do with it?' (Of course, the same argument can be used against block devices, which exist primarily to give names to an internal interface. I occasionally argue for /dev entries for network interfaces. Certainly `permissions on /dev entries' is a better approach than `magic socket options'. Alas, you really *do* want filters inserted over top of raw interfaces. `Protocol stacks' make sense here but the demultiplexing becomes hairy.) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab CSE/EE (+1 415 486 5427) Berkeley, CA Domain: torek@ee.lbl.gov
rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) (04/04/91)
In article <11687@dog.ee.lbl.gov> torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes: ?In article <1991Apr1.203925.19204@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> ?jeffrey@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Jeffrey L Bromberger) writes: ?>So, how come no [/dev] entry for the DEUNA ethernet card? I realize it's ?>configured as a pseudo-device ... ? ?Actually, it is configured as a regular `device': ? ? device de0 at uba? csr 0174510 vector deintr ? ?(`vector deintr' really belongs elsewhere, but this is a completely ?different topic). The argument against a /dev entry begins with ?`what would you do with it?' Why, open it for starters. Then you could ioctl instead of bind, listen, accept and connect, [gs]etsockopt. When NBS first went to networking, someone was having problems with one of their VAXen. I volunteered to help, and after I tried 'ifconfig ex0' (they had an il), I spent quite a bit of time looking for it in /dev. I then logged onto all the other (three) systems that were up and running and started looking for stuff there too. What a dirty trick! -- [rbj@uunet 1] stty sane unknown mode: sane