On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> There definitely needs to be a mount option (and possibly a config >> option to forcibly enable the mount option). I personally have 5 or 6 >> different custom scripts that depend on being able to unmount and >> remount devpts without losing access to the TTYs therein. Eventually >> I will need to port those over to use "mount --move", but it would be >> bad to have a random kernel upgrade just break my imaging/cloning >> system. > > An interesting point. What should the semantics be. If we unmount /dev/pts > and people still have ptys open. -EBUSY? Except for lazy unmounts?
Well, even if it's unmounted you can still access your pty with /dev/tty. As it stands right now it's possible to "umount /dev/pts" from an SSH login and still have a mostly-functional system. The only failure will be when somebody needs a pseudo-TTY and you have devpts unmounted and UNIX98 ptys turned off. So for the legacy case, the behavior should be exactly as it is now. In the CONFIG_DEVPTY_FORCE_PERMOUNT/"permount"-option case, I agree that you could easily go either way. Cheers, Kyle Moffett _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel