[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: TTY: tty_port questions
Am 25.03.2012 16:51, schrieb Alan Cox:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 23:20:01 +0000
> Al Viro <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:48:32AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>>> It will be. In order to fix the tty locking mess we need to shove a lot
>>>>> of stuff whose lifetime is the lifetime of the physical port somewhere
>>>>> else - the tty_port is that structure.
>>>> "It will be" in terms of "not now"? ;-)
>>> As in, it's the very next step on.
>> FWIW, uml console in default config is basically "start xterm for each VC".
>> What do you suggest to do on vhangup() on one of those?
> What posix says must happen. Which is that the running processes get a
> hangup. So a vhangup() would ensure there were no old apps on the UML
> guess talking to the xterm (eg stealing login credentials, or abusing
> TIOCSTI etc).

Looks like Debian's /bin/login is violating POSIX. AFACT it does not
call vhangup() at all.

> The fact it's an xterm isn't really relevant. That's just the physical
> interface and vhangup is about breaking the logical link. The xterm would
> continue, no reason for it to do otherwise I can see ?

As I wrote in my very first mail, if I implement tty_operations->hangup()
a vhangup() closes the current TTY and the shiny new login shell dies because
read/write() returns EIO.

So, the question is whether tty_port is not suitable for consoles or my driver
(see first mail in thread) is broken.


[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-25 17:17    [W:0.045 / U:2.528 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site