Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Sep 2003 18:42:36 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: 2.6-test4 Traditional pty and devfs |
| |
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:21:41AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > 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?
They work as they do in 2.4 and 2.6 (and any previous kernel) without devfs, remember the pt_chown pain?
There's no point in emulating half of the UNIX98 pty semantics in devfs when we have UNIX98 ptys that do it right anyway.
> IOW: we broke it. Have you any theory as to which change caused this?
That's the magic use uid/gid of the process calling devfs_Register flag I killed. With a big HEADSUP and explanation on lkml..
- 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/ On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:21:41AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > 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?
They work as they do in 2.4 and 2.6 (and any previous kernel) without devfs, remember the pt_chown pain?
There's no point in emulating half of the UNIX98 pty semantics in devfs when we have UNIX98 ptys that do it right anyway.
> IOW: we broke it. Have you any theory as to which change caused this?
That's the magic use uid/gid of the process calling devfs_Register flag I killed. With a big HEADSUP and explanation on lkml..
- 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/
| |