- I don't like the refactoring because it makes ptyfs less optional (brings
in code and headers to the base kernel). I think it is simpler to provide
an entry function to get the mount point instead, and this way all the guts
of ptyfs stay in ptyfs.
Looks better, thank you.
- Is it
Some misspelling corrections.
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs.h|2 +
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vfsops.c | 63 ++--
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vnops.c | 25 ++-
kern/tty_bsdpty.c | 11 +++-
kern/tty_ptm.c | 45
On Apr 4, 12:29pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
|
| - I don't like the refactoring because it makes ptyfs less optional (brings
|in code and headers to the base kernel). I think it is simpler to provide
|an entry
Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount point
then so we get the correct one?
Why? In general case we forever must return first which mount first, next mount
point,
shouldn't replace previous, else incorrect TIOCPTMGET(path) for already opened
pty we will
On 04.04.2014 18:40, Ilya Zykov wrote:
Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
point
then so we get the correct one?
Why? In general case we forever must return first which mount first, next
mount point,
shouldn't replace previous, else incorrect
On Apr 4, 6:40pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
|
| Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
point
| then so we get the correct one?
|
| Why? In general case we forever must return first which
On 04.04.2014 18:55, Christos Zoulas wrote:
On Apr 4, 6:40pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
|
| Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
point
| then so we get the correct one
On 04.04.2014 18:55, Christos Zoulas wrote:
On Apr 4, 6:40pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
|
| Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
point
| then so we get the correct one
On 04.04.2014 18:55, Christos Zoulas wrote:
On Apr 4, 6:40pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
|
| Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
point
| then so we get the correct one
On Apr 4, 7:28pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| On 04.04.2014 18:55, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| On Apr 4, 6:40pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
| -- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances
Small test.
#include util.h
#include stdio.h
#include termios.h
#include err.h
#include stdlib.h
#include sys/types.h
#include sys/ioctl.h
#include sys/stat.h
#include errno.h
#include fcntl.h
#include grp.h
#include stdio.h
#include string.h
#include unistd.h
main (){
int amaster,
On Apr 2, 10:36am, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
Looks very good. Some changes:
- I don't like the refactoring because it makes ptyfs less optional (brings
in code and headers to the base kernel). I think it is simpler to provide
On 01.04.2014 23:38, Ilya Zykov wrote:
Hello!
This patch introduces subject.
Some code refactoring, because we have more stronger ptm - ptyfs binding.
BSD pty compatibility improvement.
Main explanation you can see in comments inside.
Also I am not sure about, how, correctly release
Hello!
This patch introduces subject.
Some code refactoring, because we have more stronger ptm - ptyfs binding.
BSD pty compatibility improvement.
Main explanation you can see in comments inside.
Also I am not sure about, how, correctly release unused vnode and return it
for system and call
Hello!
Maybe you skipped:
Minor corrections readdir and lookup for multi-mountpoint use.
ptyfs_vnops.c |6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Resending.
Also main patch for subject.
I didn't want locate many code in ptm driver, but in real world,
it was the most
On 27.03.2014 12:51, Ilya Zykov wrote:
Hello!
Maybe you skipped:
Minor corrections readdir and lookup for multi-mountpoint use.
ptyfs_vnops.c |6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Resending.
Also main patch for subject.
I didn't want locate many code in ptm
On Mar 27, 5:53pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
| --040300020609040305030709
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| On 27.03.2014 12:51, Ilya Zykov wrote:
| Hello!
| Maybe you skipped:
| Minor corrections readdir and lookup for multi-mountpoint use.
|
| ptyfs_vnops.c |6 --
| 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Please, don't forget this, otherwise readdir returns
On Mar 28, 12:37am, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Please, don't forget this, otherwise readdir returns released(free), but
still hashed inode numbers.
|
Got it, thanks!
christos
Hello!
Minor corrections readdir and lookup for multi-mountpoint use.
ptyfs_vnops.c |6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Ilya.
Index: fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vnops.c
===
RCS file:
On Mar 26, 2:09pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Index: fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_subr.c
| ===
| RCS file: /cvsil/nbcur/src/sys/fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_subr.c,v
| retrieving revision
PTYFS has dependency from ptm driver.
If config has NO_DEV_PTM, PTYFS isn't compiled.
PTYFS is useless without ptm.
How, better, this condition is fixed in config files?
On Mar 26, 6:36pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| PTYFS has dependency from ptm driver.
| If config has NO_DEV_PTM, PTYFS isn't compiled.
| PTYFS is useless without ptm.
|
| How, better, this condition is fixed in config files
In article 5332dc47.1060...@izyk.ru, Ilya Zykov net...@izyk.ru wrote:
|
| - error = (*ptm-makename)(ptm, l, name, sizeof(name), dev, ms);
| + error = pty_makename(ptm, l, name, sizeof(name), dev, ms);
|if (error)
|return error;
|
Are you sure about this one? It is
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:49:15AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
On Mar 24, 5:46pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Hello!
|
| Please, tell me know if I wrong.
| In general case I can't find(easy), from driver, where its
Hello!
Please, tell me know if I wrong.
In general case I can't find(easy), from driver, where its device file located
on file system,
its vnode or its directory vnode where this file located.
Such files can be many and I can't find what file used for current operation.
Maybe anybody had being
On Mar 24, 5:46pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Hello!
|
| Please, tell me know if I wrong.
| In general case I can't find(easy), from driver, where its device file
located on file system,
| its vnode or its directory vnode
You can't find from the driver where the device node file is located
OK, I thought so.
Thank you.
I don't understand why you want to get rid of the mountpoint arg inside
the pty structure. It certainly makes things faster, and the pty can't
be shared...
christos
Sorry, but I don't understand too, what structure do you mean exactly and how.
Ilya.
On Mar 22, 3:50pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
|
| I don't understand why you want to get rid of the mountpoint arg inside
| the pty structure. It certainly makes things faster, and the pty can't
| be shared
In article 532def5e.2040...@izyk.ru, Ilya Zykov net...@izyk.ru wrote:
The mountpoint inside ptm_pty. Perhaps by having separate instances in the
ptm
driver?
christos
I think, it's not better.
I can do so, but:
1. Now we have only 2 instances ptm_pty, one for ptyfs one for bsdpty
and
Hello!
Correct ptyfs_readdir for multi mount points use.
ptyfs.h |1 +
ptyfs_subr.c |3 +--
ptyfs_vnops.c |2 +-
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Ilya.
Index: fs/ptyfs/ptyfs.h
===
RCS file:
In article 532c0718.3020...@izyk.ru, Ilya Zykov net...@izyk.ru wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-
Hello!
Correct ptyfs_readdir for multi mount points use.
committed.
christos
DONE.
:)
If seriously, it's first working prototype for comments and objections.
It's working as follow:
Mount first ptyfs instance in /dev/pts(or other path) you can get access to
master side
through ptm{x} device.
Mount second ptyfs instance inside chroot(Example: /var/chroot/test/dev/pts),
On Mar 21, 10:23pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| If seriously, it's first working prototype for comments and objections.
|
| It's working as follow:
|
| Mount first ptyfs instance in /dev/pts(or other path) you can get access
Hello!
For not accumulate many changes and keep patch clear.
I am sending some error fix and modifications for future work and discussion
too.
Please, if possible, include it in current tree.
Little explanations:
1. We shouldn't mount more than one ptyfs.(dependency from unmount order).
| *--bp = '\0';
| - error = getcwd_common(cwdi-cwdi_rdir, rootvnode, bp,
| + error = getcwd_common(mp-mnt_vnodecovered, cwdi-cwdi_rdir, bp,
| buf, MAXBUF / 2, 0, l);
Might as well pass NULL for cwdi-cwdi_rdir, since it does the same.
But it is less obvious, and haven't
On Mar 19, 9:51pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Ok, but bug will stay in the system, temporarily.
No problem, no worse than we have now.
christos
|
| fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vfsops.c | 16 +++-
| kern/tty_ptm.c
| People did not like that.
|
| Didn't like what if 1 or return EBUSY?
The return EBUSY...
Ok, but bug will stay in the system, temporarily.
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vfsops.c | 16 +++-
kern/tty_ptm.c |9 -
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Ilya.
On Mar 19, 2014, at 1:17 PM, Ilya Zykov net...@izyk.ru wrote:
|*--bp = '\0';
| - error = getcwd_common(cwdi-cwdi_rdir, rootvnode, bp,
| + error = getcwd_common(mp-mnt_vnodecovered, cwdi-cwdi_rdir, bp,
|buf, MAXBUF / 2, 0, l);
Might as well pass NULL for cwdi-cwdi_rdir, since
Hello!
I desire develop this project.
About me.
I am system administrator in little Italy-Russia's firm. I live in Moscow.
OS kernel it's my hobby mainly.
I have free time now and can do this project about 1-2 months.
I have little experience with Linux kernel's tty layer and few accepted
On Mar 14, 12:30pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Hello!
| I desire develop this project.
Excellent.
| About me.
| I am system administrator in little Italy-Russia's firm. I live in Moscow.
| OS kernel it's my hobby mainly.
| I have
| I have few questions about project.
| Christos, can I ask you about this?
| Please, if anybody has objections or already doing it, tell me know.
Nobody is already doing it, and if you have questions, you came to the right
place.
christos
Ok.
1. The main problem and question in
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Ilya Zykov net...@izyk.ru wrote:
| I have few questions about project.
| Christos, can I ask you about this?
| Please, if anybody has objections or already doing it, tell me know.
Nobody is already doing it, and if you have questions, you came to the right
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:51:12AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
I don't think that putting ptmx inside devpts makes sense. OTOH, we
could have multiple ptmx devices with different minor numbers and use that
as the differentiating factor for the pty devices. I think that's too complex
and
In article 20140314143532.ga17...@britannica.bec.de,
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:51:12AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
I don't think that putting ptmx inside devpts makes sense. OTOH, we
could have multiple ptmx devices with different minor
On 14.03.2014 17:51, Christos Zoulas wrote:
On Mar 14, 5:29pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Ok.
|
| 1. The main problem and question in this project(IMHO), it's how get access
for every instance through one driver ptm[x
On Mar 14, 6:49pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| We first need to decide if disclosing gaps in the pty number is a security
| issue. If not, it is simple; we just allocate the next free one and we don't
| care about gaps. I.e
On 14.03.2014 18:40, Christos Zoulas wrote:
In article 20140314143532.ga17...@britannica.bec.de,
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:51:12AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
I don't think that putting ptmx inside devpts makes sense. OTOH, we
could have
if the first mount can only have [0..n-1] the second [n...2*n] etc...
165:0 165:1 is ptm[x] first instance devices. 165:2 165:3 is ptm[x] second
instance devices ...
Every instance can have [0..N] pts devices.
Ilya.
Hello. I actually do use ptmx(4) without ptyfs, but I would be
willing for that to go away in NetBSD-7 or 8.
-Brian
On Mar 14, 2:40pm, Christos Zoulas wrote:
} Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
} In article 20140314143532.ga17...@britannica.bec.de,
} Joerg
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:40:50 + (UTC)
From: chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas)
In article 20140314143532.ga17...@britannica.bec.de,
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote:
Actually, it would simplify things a lot if /dev/ptmx was a symlink to
/dev/pts/ptmx.
On Mar 14, 5:08pm, campbell+netbsd-tech-k...@mumble.net (Taylor R Campbell)
wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| We could install a symlink at /dev/ptmx pointing to pts/ptmx, and we
| could install a device node at /dev/pts/ptmx, which gets hidden by the
| ptyfs
53 matches
Mail list logo
