linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tty: Add sysfs symlink for console name->tty device

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: <530F44F2.6050802@hurleysoftware.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:00:18 -0500
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>
CC:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ray Strode <halfline@...il.com>,
	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
	Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
	Werner Fink <werner@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: Add sysfs symlink for console name->tty device

On 02/27/2014 08:36 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com> wrote:
>> On 02/27/2014 06:13 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Enable a user-space process to discover the underlying tty device
>>>> for a console, if one exists, and when the tty device is later
>>>> created or destroyed.
>>>>
>>>> Add sysfs symlinks for registered consoles to their respective
>>>> devices in [sys/class,sys/devices/virtual]/tty/console.
>>>> Scan consoles at tty device (un)registration to handle deferred
>>>> console<->device (un)binding.
>>>
>>> What tool is supposed to read that? I can't think of anything
>>> interested in this, as soon as we have fixed the "active" console
>>> output.
>
>> With all due respect, that "fix" is a ridiculous hack,
>
> No, it is not. It's fine to handle tty0 special, as it is special.

I wasn't just referring to the plymouth workaround.

>> being done
>> for self-serving expedience.
>
> I don't see the problem.
>
>> It already caused one user-space breakage
>> which you did not expect.
>
> That is normal way to do things, only people who don't do things don't
> break things. And broken things get fixed, and the "active" file is still
> fixable, and that is what we should do.

But what's the plan when more user-space breakage is uncovered after that
change has been in 10 kernel releases?

Then everyone will point to how much user-space breakage reverting it
will cause.

> We don't need to invent new things because we did not get things right
> with the first try.
>
>> This sysfs interface is superior in every way.
>
> But nothing uses it now, and probably never will, so I don't see the
> need for it at this moment.

Let's just avoid the mess right up-front.

Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
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/