lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.058 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site