From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: devpts multiple instances feedback
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:09:40 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090105210940.GA31629@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090103155209.GA17988@lst.de>
Christoph Hellwig [hch@lst.de] wrote:
| I just took a look at the changes going into Linus current tree and
| here's some feedback about the devpts multiple instances code:
Thanks for the review. Here are some quick responses and will go over
comments/patch more closely.
Ccing Alan Cox.
|
| - the ptmx node is quite useful, I think it should always be around,
| even for normal devpts mounts. That way distros can slowly migrate
| over to just using it by default and making the containers
| interaction easier. It's also in many ways much nicer to have
| all the pty handling in one filesystems instead of sometimes
| using the character device.
Making the pts/ptmx node would certianly simplify the code. But we
ended up with some of the complexity to preserve the legacy behavior.
I believe there was some concern that the presence of a "shadow"
ptmx node on older distros might affect rights management (eg: if
the older distro which does not know about /dev/pts/ptmx, applied
a security label to /dev/ptmx that label could be subverted by using
/dev/pts/ptmx ?
That was also one of the reasons for the default 000 mode on the pts/ptmx
device node
| - the 000 mode is very weird, given how the /dev/ptmx operates
| it doesn't really make much sense to have it different than 0666
| unless you want to disable ptys.
| - why does pts_sb_from_inode have to check s_magic, I can't see
| it ever used on an inode not from the devpts filesystem
If /dev/ptmx is not a symlink to pts/ptmx, we would need the s_magic
check ? (eg: when called from devpts_new_index()). The check would
not be needed if /dev/ptmx is always a symlink.
| - parsing the options twice is rather odd, I'd rather parse it into
| a once allocated structure then passed on through the private
| data void pointer into get_sb_nodev
Agree :-)
| - creating the ptmx node should happen inside devfs_fill_super
| - once the ptmx mknod is gone I think new_pts_mount,
| is_new_instance_mount, init_pts_mount and maybe even get_init_pts_sb
| should be merged into devpts_get_sb to make the whole mounting
| scenario easier to follow instead of having to jump through half
| a dozen functions
| - I think CONFIG_DEVPTS_MULTIPLE_INSTANCES is not a good idea,
| it's not much code and could either be enabled unconditionally or
| based on the presence of a generic namespaces config option.
| (btw, this also applies to the other namespaces options, there's
The config token was not needed for the namespaces itself but more
to preserve the legacy behavior. If we don't need o preseve the
legacy mode, we could remove the token.
| not much of a reason to have millions of options for them,
| one single option would be a lot easier for the user..)
| --
| To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
| the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
| More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-05 21:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-03 15:52 devpts multiple instances feedback Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-03 16:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-26 21:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-27 3:32 ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2009-01-05 21:09 ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu [this message]
2009-01-26 21:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-26 21:58 ` Alan Cox
2009-02-01 16:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-02-01 16:41 ` Alan Cox
2009-01-26 21:58 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-02-01 16:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090105210940.GA31629@us.ibm.com \
--to=sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox