linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Remove pty_ops_bsd and pty_bsd

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:28:23 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	dhowells@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove pty_ops_bsd and pty_bsd_ioctl() as they're not
 used

O> Also, does it matter if someone issues TIOCGPTN on a legacy pty master?  There
> is a number in tty->index that can be returned.  If it can, then

Not a lot - providing someone isn't using it as a way to tell pty types
apart (which I have seen done in example code)

> pty_bsd_ioctl() can be merged with pty_unix98_ioctl(), and possibly both
> ioctls can be given to the generic tty ioctl handling 

I would keep 

	if (type == FOO)

as far away from the generic tty ioctl code as possible. It's already
convoluted and complex with zillions of ioctl calls. Separating out lots
of the console and other ioctls properly cleaned it up no end and going
backwards would be a bad mistake.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/