On πΞΔ, 2002-02-18 at 00:52, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > - still devfs documentation tells us we should not use devpts with
> > devfs; and I am not sure who wins. pty.c registers /dev/pts/? with
> > current owner and 600 permissions; and here I have
> >
> > {pts/1}% ll /dev/pts
> > ΠΈΡ'ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ 0
> > crw--w---- 1 bor bor 136, 0 ΠΗΠΠ 16 16:11 0
> > crw------- 1 bor bor 136, 1 ΠΗΠΠ 16 17:05 1
> > crw------- 1 bor bor 136, 2 ΠΗΠΠ 16 17:03 2
> > crw------- 1 bor bor 136, 3 ΠΗΠΠ 16 17:04 3
> >
> > that looks like pts/0 got permissions from devpts and others from devfs
> > because default mount for devpts here is 640
>
> I doubt that. More likely some programme changed the permissions for
> pts/0 (perhaps xconsole or th Gnome equivalent?).
>
I booted without mounted devpts and all of them have the same
permissions:
{pts/2}% LANGUAGE=en LC_TIME=en ll /dev/pts
total 0
crw------- 1 bor bor 136, 0 Jan 1 1970 0
crw------- 1 bor bor 136, 1 Feb 18 22:51 1
crw------- 1 bor bor 136, 2 Feb 18 22:55 2
may be there are different ways to open pty and they take different
paths.
But this imply that we really should not use devpts due to possiblilty
of permissions not being applied.
> > - and /etc/devfsd.conf tells us we must not fiddle with /dev/pt{s,y}
> > permissions.
>
> Well, it doesn't quite say that. What it says is that you don't want
> to have permissions persistence for /dev/pt{s,y} devices. That doesn't
> mean you can't or shouldn't have a PERMISSIONS action.
>
> > So could anybody give ultimate answer on
> >
> > - should devpts be used in presence of devfs?
>
> No.
>
> > - how to manage permissions of pts - i.e. why they cannot be managed by
> > devfsd?
>
> As Russell said in his follow-up, use a PERMISSIONS action on the
> REGISTER event.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard....
> Permanent: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Current: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
