H. Peter Anvin [hpa@xxxxxxxxx] wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: >>> auto-created, than supporting mknod(2) inside the devpts filesystem. It's >>> not a matter of "changing the user space"; it's a matter of what makes >>> most sense inside the kernel. >> Having an extra node with different permissions suddenely appear without >> warning isn't I think good behaviour. > > Hm. Given that the single-instance mode is the backwards compatibility > mode (and it's accessible from outside the filesystem), it probably makes > sense to suppress creating this device node when *not* applying the "newns" > option, or whatever we want to call it. I had the new ptmx node only in 'multi-mount' mode initially. But if users want the multi-mount semantics, /dev/ptmx must be a symlink. If its a symlink, we break in the single-mount case (which does not have the ptmx node and we don't support mknod in pts). > >> I'm open to being convinced and the >> other problems with that code are more pressing. Yes, I will look at the latest in linux-next and the ->driver_data approach. But just to confirm, we do want try and keep single-mount semantics. > > Agreed. > > -hpa _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
