Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:08:41 +0200 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely7.cicely.de> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, ticso@cicely.de, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Subject: Re: How to increase the max pty's on Freebsd 7.0? Message-ID: <20090408120841.GC68699@cicely7.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <200904081343.53600.max@love2party.net> References: <A48E38AADF784030A7496551F1416A3B@multiplay.co.uk> <20090402061003.GR13393@hoeg.nl> <20090408112538.GA68699@cicely7.cicely.de> <200904081343.53600.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 12:43:53PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 April 2009 13:25:39 Bernd Walter wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:10:03AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote:
> > > * Paul Schenkeveld <fb-hackers@psconsult.nl> wrote:
> > > > Or change 'pts' to, for example, 'pt' so without changing utmp and
> > > > related stuff we'll have space for a four digit pty number.
> > >
> > > I've noticed lots of apps already misbehave because of the pty(4) ->
> > > pts(4) migration. I guess using a new naming scheme would totally break
> > > stuff. There are lots of apps that do things like:
> > >
> > > if (strncmp(tty, "tty", 3) != 0 && strncmp(tty, "pts/", 4) != 0)
> > > printf("Not a valid pseudo-terminal!\n");
> > >
> > > But those are just workarounds. Our utmp format is broken anyway. It's
> > > not just UT_LINESIZE that's too small. I think we received many
> > > complaints from people who want to increase UT_HOSTSIZE as well.
> >
> > Well, UT_HOSTSIZE can't hold a full sized IPv6 address.
>
> RFC 1924 (still needs four more, but avoids ridiculously large UT_HOSTSIZE ;)
It doesn't handle scope information ;-)
--
B.Walter <bernd@bwct.de> http://www.bwct.de
Modbus/TCP Ethernet I/O Baugruppen, ARM basierte FreeBSD Rechner uvm.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090408120841.GC68699>