Re: 2.6-test4 Traditional pty and devfs

[Andrew Morton]

Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/