Re: [RFC] fix devpts mount behavior

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Sukadev Bhattiprolu (sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> Serge Hallyn [serge@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> | Quoting Al Viro (viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> | > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 04:41:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> | > 
> | > > Right. I think the opportunity for problems should be pretty small.
> | > > 
> | > > And it's not like the pty itself wouldn't continue to work - it's just
> | > > that programs like /usr/bin/tty wouldn't be able to *find* it.
> | > > 
> | > > Although who knows - maybe there is some other subtle interaction.
> | > 
> | > FWIW, the subtle and nasty part in all that is  that you can mknod /dev/ptmx
> | > and it *will* work, refering to the "initial" instance.  That's what
> | > concerns me about the chroot scenarios -
> | > 	mknod /jail/dev/ptmx c 5 2
> | > 	mkdir /jail/dev/pts
> | > 	mount -t devpts /jail/dev/pts
> | > 	chroot /jail
> | > works fine right now, but with that change behaviour will be all wrong -
> | > opening /dev/ptmx inside of jail will grab you a pts, all right, but
> | > it will *not* show up in (jail) /dev/pts/* as it does with the current
> | > kernel.
> | > 
> | > Note that if you replace that mknod with symlink pts/ptmx /jail/dev/ptmx
> | > the things will keep working.  However, that will _only_ work for kernels
> | > with DEVPTS_MULTIPLE_INSTANCES - without it you won't get ptmx inside
> | > devpts (which is arguably wrong, BTW)
> | 
> | Should /dev/pts/ptmx be created for DEVPTS_MULTIPLE_INSTANCES=n?
> 
> With DEVPTS_MULTIPLE_INSTANCES=n, there is only _one_ (global) instance
> right ? Why would we need a 'pts/ptmx' node ? To keep the symlink (i.e
> user space scripts) valid for both single and multiple instance cases ?

Exactly
--
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/