Quoting Sukadev Bhattiprolu (sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > Serge Hallyn [serge@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > | Quoting Al Viro (viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > | > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 04:41:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > | > > | > > Right. I think the opportunity for problems should be pretty small. > | > > > | > > And it's not like the pty itself wouldn't continue to work - it's just > | > > that programs like /usr/bin/tty wouldn't be able to *find* it. > | > > > | > > Although who knows - maybe there is some other subtle interaction. > | > > | > FWIW, the subtle and nasty part in all that is that you can mknod /dev/ptmx > | > and it *will* work, refering to the "initial" instance. That's what > | > concerns me about the chroot scenarios - > | > mknod /jail/dev/ptmx c 5 2 > | > mkdir /jail/dev/pts > | > mount -t devpts /jail/dev/pts > | > chroot /jail > | > works fine right now, but with that change behaviour will be all wrong - > | > opening /dev/ptmx inside of jail will grab you a pts, all right, but > | > it will *not* show up in (jail) /dev/pts/* as it does with the current > | > kernel. > | > > | > Note that if you replace that mknod with symlink pts/ptmx /jail/dev/ptmx > | > the things will keep working. However, that will _only_ work for kernels > | > with DEVPTS_MULTIPLE_INSTANCES - without it you won't get ptmx inside > | > devpts (which is arguably wrong, BTW) > | > | Should /dev/pts/ptmx be created for DEVPTS_MULTIPLE_INSTANCES=n? > > With DEVPTS_MULTIPLE_INSTANCES=n, there is only _one_ (global) instance > right ? Why would we need a 'pts/ptmx' node ? To keep the symlink (i.e > user space scripts) valid for both single and multiple instance cases ? Exactly _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
