From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrew.lunn@ascom.ch
Subject: Re: 2.6-test4 Traditional pty and devfs
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 15:08:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030902150808.A7388@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030902104212.GA23978@londo.lunn.ch>; from andrew@lunn.ch on Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:42:12PM +0200
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.
> 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.
Why aren't you using the new-style ptys?
-
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 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.
> 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.
Why aren't you using the new-style ptys?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-02 14:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-02 10:42 Andrew Lunn
2003-09-02 14:08 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2003-09-02 17:21 ` Andrew Morton
2003-09-02 17:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-09-02 17:43 ` Andrew Morton
2003-09-02 18:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-09-02 18:16 ` Andrew Lunn
2003-09-02 18:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-09-02 18:35 ` Andrew Lunn
2003-09-02 18:08 ` Andrew Lunn
2003-09-03 2:52 Albert Cahalan
2003-09-03 6:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030902150808.A7388@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=andrew.lunn@ascom.ch \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®