Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263724AbTIBRwh (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:52:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263832AbTIBRuX (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:50:23 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:40843 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263848AbTIBRif (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:38:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 10:21:41 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: andrew@lunn.ch, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrew.lunn@ascom.ch Subject: Re: 2.6-test4 Traditional pty and devfs Message-Id: <20030902102141.44dc7297.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20030902150808.A7388@infradead.org> References: <20030902104212.GA23978@londo.lunn.ch> <20030902150808.A7388@infradead.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2552 Lines: 60 Christoph Hellwig 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 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/