Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261797AbTIBSSA (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 14:18:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263870AbTIBRt6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:49:58 -0400 Received: from pub234.cambridge.redhat.com ([213.86.99.234]:64269 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263891AbTIBRmn (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:42:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 18:42:36 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Andrew Morton Cc: andrew@lunn.ch, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrew.lunn@ascom.ch Subject: Re: 2.6-test4 Traditional pty and devfs Message-ID: <20030902184236.A14715@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , andrew@lunn.ch, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrew.lunn@ascom.ch References: <20030902104212.GA23978@londo.lunn.ch> <20030902150808.A7388@infradead.org> <20030902102141.44dc7297.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030902102141.44dc7297.akpm@osdl.org>; from akpm@osdl.org on Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:21:41AM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2582 Lines: 56 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/