Quoting sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx (sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx):
>
> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [RFC][PATCH 6/6]: /dev/tty tweak in init_dev()
>
> When opening /dev/tty, __tty_open() finds the tty using get_current_tty().
> When __tty_open() calls init_dev(), init_dev() tries to 'find' the tty
> again from devpts. Is that really necessary ?
>
> The problem with asking devpts again is that with multiple mounts, devpts
> cannot find the tty without knowing the specific mount instance. We can't
> find the mount instance of devpts, since the inode of /dev/tty is in a
> different filesystem.
>
> ---
> drivers/char/tty_io.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.26-rc8-mm1/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.26-rc8-mm1.orig/drivers/char/tty_io.c 2008-08-04 17:25:20.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.26-rc8-mm1/drivers/char/tty_io.c 2008-08-04 17:26:34.000000000 -0700
> @@ -2066,7 +2066,10 @@ static int init_dev(struct tty_driver *d
>
> /* check whether we're reopening an existing tty */
> if (driver->flags & TTY_DRIVER_DEVPTS_MEM) {
> - tty = devpts_get_tty(inode, idx);
> + if (inode->i_rdev == MKDEV(TTYAUX_MAJOR, 0))
> + tty = *ret_tty;
I don't understand this. ret_tty is for returning tty. For instance in
_ptmx_open() it's passed in completely uninitialized. Isn't it
dereferenced later in init_dev?
And what you're doing here doesn't really match your patch intro, but
the patch intro doesn't really say what the patch does, it just lists a
problem. So I'm 100% unclear on what your intent here is.
> + else
> + tty = devpts_get_tty(inode, idx);
> /*
> * If we don't have a tty here on a slave open, it's because
> * the master already started the close process and there's
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
