Serge E. Hallyn [serue@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: | > | I suppose you could just create /dev/pts/ptmx and /dev/pts/tty. | > | Recommend that in containers /dev/ptmx and /dev/tty be symlinks | > | into /dev/pts. Applications don't need to change. If | > | ptmx_open() sees that inode->i_sb is a devptsfs, it gets the | > | namespace from the sb. If not, then it was a device in /dev | > | and it gets the nmespace from current. | > | > But we would still depend on user-space remounting /dev/pts after | > the clone right ? Until they do that we would access the parent | > container's /dev/pts/ptmx ? | | Yes. Which is the right thing to do imo. Hmm, that sounds reasonable, although slightly inconsistent with pid-ns, where pid starts at 1 regardless of whether /proc is remounted. But even so, if user fails to establish the symlink, clones the pts ns and tries to create a pty, we would end up with different pts nses again ? i.e /dev/ptmx is still a char dev in root fs clone(pts_ns) ( In child, (before remount /dev/pts)) open("/dev/ptmx") open("/dev/pts/0") Since ptmx is not in devpts, we use current_pts_ns() or child-pts-ns Since /dev/pts is not remounted in child, we get the parent pts-ns from If we can somehow detect the incorrect configuration and fail either open, we should be ok :-) inode. Suka _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers