sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx writes: > 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). Then have user space make it a file bind mount instead of symlink. That should address all of the backwards compatibility concerns, and allow us to only create it when open. >>> 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. Definitely. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
