linux-kernel - Re: [uml-devel] um: TTY fixes (?)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4FD0D9AF.4000605@nod.at>
Date:	Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:41:19 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jslaby@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] um: TTY fixes (?)

Am 07.06.2012 18:50, schrieb Alan Cox:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:32:42 +0200
> Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
> 
>> Am 07.06.2012 18:37, schrieb Alan Cox:
>>> Yes I know exactly what is going on. However getting a more tolerant
>>> behaviour is going to take a couple more kernels.
>>>
>>
>> So, then please tell me what's the proper way to fix the UML console
>> driver?
>>
>> - tty_port plus ->hangup() works only with a patched util-linux
>> - tty_port without ->hangup() seems to work only if *getty does not
>> call vhangup()
> 
> There isn't a nice one. It'll have to wait until 3.6/7 or so to get
> fixed nicely and it won't backport either.
> 

Hmm, that's odd.
What about the not nice ways?
Having a ugly driver until 3.7 is better than having no driver...

I'm wondering why does drivers/tty/vt/vt.c work?
Can't I model the UML driver after it?

Thanks,
//richard




Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)