Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Sep 2003 10:21:41 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.6-test4 Traditional pty and devfs |
| |
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:42:12PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > I've attached two possible patches to the bugzilla bug. The first one > > causes the slave devices to be created in devfs at start up. The > > second one makes it work more like 2.4 when the slave device is only > > created when the master device is opened. > > The first patch looks okay.
But what about this:
> > Both patches suffer from a problem. The slave is always only RW > > root. 2.4 sets the owner of the slave to that of the process opening > > the master. I cannot see a way to make this happen with 2.6-test. > > Well, that's why we have UNIX98 ptys. My preferred fix for this > issue would be to just axe traditional ptys, although this would probably > make it us incompatible with libc5.
Unless we made an explicit decision to kill off old-style ptys (and we did not do that), they should continue to work as in 2.4, yes?
IOW: we broke it. Have you any theory as to which change caused this?
- 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/ Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:42:12PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > I've attached two possible patches to the bugzilla bug. The first one > > causes the slave devices to be created in devfs at start up. The > > second one makes it work more like 2.4 when the slave device is only > > created when the master device is opened. > > The first patch looks okay.
But what about this:
> > Both patches suffer from a problem. The slave is always only RW > > root. 2.4 sets the owner of the slave to that of the process opening > > the master. I cannot see a way to make this happen with 2.6-test. > > Well, that's why we have UNIX98 ptys. My preferred fix for this > issue would be to just axe traditional ptys, although this would probably > make it us incompatible with libc5.
Unless we made an explicit decision to kill off old-style ptys (and we did not do that), they should continue to work as in 2.4, yes?
IOW: we broke it. Have you any theory as to which change caused this?
- 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/
| |