On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
>
> What actually breaks is "echo NNN > /proc/sys/kernel/pty/reserve"
> Which allows the primary instance of devpts to have access to more
> ptys than any other instance.
Ok. We'll probably need to fix that similarly (make it look up
/dev/
ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
> "H. Peter Anvin" writes:
>
>> Does it matter if it mounts devpts twice? It seems like a waste of a
>> minuscule amount of memory, and nothing else.
> It breaks system("mknod /tmp/ptmx c 5 2"); open("/tmp/ptmx");
Correction.
It does break the
"H. Peter Anvin" writes:
> Does it matter if it mounts devpts twice? It seems like a waste of a
> minuscule amount of memory, and nothing else.
It breaks system("mknod /tmp/ptmx c 5 2"); open("/tmp/ptmx");
As it opens a pty in an inaccessible instance of devpts. When
previously the instance o
On December 19, 2015 8:11:50 PM PST, ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
>ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>
In that system ptys simply did not work after boot when I tested
associating /dev/ptmx with the first mount of the devpts
>filesystem.
>>>
>>> Assuming userspace isn't br
ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>>> In that system ptys simply did not work after boot when I tested
>>> associating /dev/ptmx with the first mount of the devpts filesystem.
>>
>> Assuming userspace isn't broken by that patch, is a fixed association
>> with first mount otherwise
Peter Hurley writes:
> On 12/11/2015 11:40 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Forcing newinstance for every mount of the devpts filesystem actually
>> requires the association between /dev/ptmx and the currently mounted
>> instance of devpts at /dev/pts. Simply remembering the first mount of
>> the
On 12/14/15 11:47, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 11:40 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Forcing newinstance for every mount of the devpts filesystem actually
>> requires the association between /dev/ptmx and the currently mounted
>> instance of devpts at /dev/pts. Simply remembering the first
On 12/11/2015 11:40 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Forcing newinstance for every mount of the devpts filesystem actually
> requires the association between /dev/ptmx and the currently mounted
> instance of devpts at /dev/pts. Simply remembering the first mount of
> the devpts filesystem and associ
On December 11, 2015 3:16:48 PM PST, Andy Lutomirski
wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 3:07 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On December 11, 2015 3:00:49 PM PST, Andy Lutomirski
> wrote:
>>>On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:52:01PM -0800, Andy Lutomirsk
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 3:07 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On December 11, 2015 3:00:49 PM PST, Andy Lutomirski
> wrote:
>>On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:52:01PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Eric W. Biederman
On December 11, 2015 3:00:49 PM PST, Andy Lutomirski
wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:52:01PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Eric W. Biederman
>>> wrote:
>>> > Andy Lutomirski writes:
>>> >
>>> >> On Fri
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:52:01PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Eric W. Biederman
>> wrote:
>> > Andy Lutomirski writes:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:07 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> >>> On 12/11/15
On December 11, 2015 2:35:16 PM PST, ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
>Andy Lutomirski writes:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:07 PM, H. Peter Anvin
>wrote:
>>> On 12/11/15 13:48, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
> Al Viro writes:
>
>
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:52:01PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> wrote:
> > Andy Lutomirski writes:
> >
> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:07 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >>> On 12/11/15 13:48, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 a
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski writes:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:07 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 12/11/15 13:48, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
> Al Viro writes:
>
>> O
Andy Lutomirski writes:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:07 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 12/11/15 13:48, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Eric W. Biederman
>>> wrote:
Al Viro writes:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
On 12/11/15 14:24, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> To do the whole shebang at once:
>
> ioctl(ptmx_fd, TIOCWHATEVER, fd_to_devpts_mount);
>
> returns the slave number if fd_to_devpts_mount points to the right
> place or an error if not.
>
> ptsname(fd) logically does:
>
> fd_to_devpts_mount = open(
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:18 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/11/15 14:12, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>> For the newinstance case st_dev should match between the master and the
>>> slave. Unfortunately this is not the case for a legacy ptmx, as a
>>> stat() on the master descriptor still return
On 12/11/15 14:12, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> For the newinstance case st_dev should match between the master and the
>> slave. Unfortunately this is not the case for a legacy ptmx, as a
>> stat() on the master descriptor still returns the st_dev, st_rdev, and
>> st_ino for the ptmx device node.
On 12/11/15 13:48, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> wrote:
>> Al Viro writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
+inode = path.dentry->d_inode;
+filp->f_path = path;
+filp->f_inode =
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:07 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/11/15 13:48, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Eric W. Biederman
>> wrote:
>>> Al Viro writes:
>>>
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> +inode = path.dentry->
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
> Al Viro writes:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>>> +inode = path.dentry->d_inode;
>>> +filp->f_path = path;
>>> +filp->f_inode = inode;
>>> +filp->f_mapping = inode->i_mapping;
Al Viro writes:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> +inode = path.dentry->d_inode;
>> +filp->f_path = path;
>> +filp->f_inode = inode;
>> +filp->f_mapping = inode->i_mapping;
>> +path_put(&old);
>
> Don't. You are creating a fairly subtle
Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Eric W. Biederman
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> +struct inode *devpts_ptmx(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEVPTS_MULTIPLE_INSTANCES
>> + struct path path, old;
>> + struct super_block *sb;
>> + stru
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> + inode = path.dentry->d_inode;
> + filp->f_path = path;
> + filp->f_inode = inode;
> + filp->f_mapping = inode->i_mapping;
> + path_put(&old);
Don't. You are creating a fairly subtle constraint on what the
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
>
>
> +struct inode *devpts_ptmx(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEVPTS_MULTIPLE_INSTANCES
> + struct path path, old;
> + struct super_block *sb;
> + struct dentry *root;
> +
> + if (in
26 matches
Mail list logo
