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]

Message-ID: <da8cd76d-6116-44a9-a7b3-7a501cb3a8a9@email.android.com>
Date:	Sat, 07 Apr 2012 13:02:33 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: deprecating/removing the legacy mode of devpts

The problem is that the lack of migration at the root causes real problems for the people who need the extra funkiness, and unlike BSD ttys it's not an application-level change at all.

Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 11:36:26 -0700
>"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
>> Currently, devpts supports a legacy mode where only one instance
>exists.
>>  For backwards compatibility, this is also the default mode, but the
>> right thing should be to migrate everyone over to the "newinstance"
>scheme.
>> 
>> However, it is increasingly clear that that is not happening; neither
>> the distros nor udev support this by default at this point.
>
>Well maybe thats because the legacy mode works perfectly well for most
>purposes and does what they want. The "non-legacy" mode is really not
>"non-legacy" its "special case extra funkiness".
>
>With my tty hat on I'd prefer to keep it indefinitely if need be. It's
>hardly a maintainability issue or a hot problem. We've got much bigger
>turds to juggle than that.
>
>I don't see why we need an agendum to force the users into making
>changes
>that really don't matter. I mean we still support BSD ptys 8)
>
>Alan

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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/