From owner-freebsd-questions Thu May 21 21:17:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA23793 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 21:17:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dc1.mfn.org (dc1.mfn.org [204.238.179.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA23733 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 21:17:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sysadmin@mfn.org) Received: from w3svcs.mfn.org (unverified [204.238.179.11]) by mail.mfn.org (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:19:11 -0500 Received: by w3svcs.mfn.org with Microsoft Mail id <01BD850E.8483D2F0@w3svcs.mfn.org>; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:16:43 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD850E.8483D2F0@w3svcs.mfn.org> From: "J.A. Terranson" To: "'djv@bedford.net'" , Restricted Use Test Acct Cc: "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG" Subject: RE: minimum pty's=2 ???? Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:16:42 -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [=] I realize that they are very low overhead software constructs, and this is *not* what bothers me. What I am crazed over is that these guys are collossal security problems (this machine is about to be a dedicated IPFW sieve). Am I ok defining them as "zero"? I'll have to try it I guess... J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org *** GUNS SAVE LIVES: MAYBE EVEN YOURS. LEARN, LICENSE, *CARRY* *** --------------------------------------------- > OK. Why? When I try to allow just 1, I get a warning that I > have only defined a single pty, followed by a notice that this > "error" is being happily corrected - to 32!!! > > Is there a reason for this behaviour? > Yup. pty's come in small flocks. Accept it. It only eats a few inodes for the /dev/[pt]tyXX pairs. Pty's are just software constructs. (Man 4 pty) for more info. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message