linux-kernel - Re: RFC: deprecating/removing the legacy mode of devpts

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

Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:14:02 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: deprecating/removing the legacy mode of devpts

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:38:29AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 04:55:41PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 04/11/2012 04:53 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> >
> >> > That all seems pretty simple.
> >> >
> >> >>   - get rid of the (rather broken) idea of 'legacy' vs 'non-legacy mode'
> >> >>     mount options in the default setup; I don't think userspace should
> >> >>     ever be required to fiddle with such stuff
> >> >
> >> > Hm, but if we get rid of them, what about tools that expect them to be
> >> > there?  Just silently ignore them?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Drop the newinstance mount option on the floor; keep recognizing the
> >> ptmxmode mount option but change the default.
> >
> > Wait, change the default to what?
> 
> Of the devpts fs mount option. The 'newinstance' one, which should not
> have existed in the first place.
> 
> > I think this is going to require a lot of testing :)
> 
> In the example patch I posted and which I ran here, I just removed the
> entire option. This was just to show that userspace does not want to
> be taught dirty tricks that need updating of early-boot tools. All
> such pretty self-contained stuff should be in the kernel itself.
> Userspace wants to be dumb here, and that worked fine so far with that
> patch. :)

I missed your patch, sorry, am catching up on the email thread now...

greg k-h
--
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/