From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jun 5 16:14:46 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA15064 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 16:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from expo.x.org (expo.x.org [198.112.45.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA15047 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 16:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exalt.x.org by expo.x.org id AA29091; Wed, 5 Jun 96 19:14:09 -0400 Received: from localhost by exalt.x.org id TAA10564; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 19:14:07 -0400 Message-Id: <199606052314.TAA10564@exalt.x.org> To: Terry Lambert Cc: hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: /dev/tty and nits in 2.2-960501-SNAP In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 05 Jun 1996 13:51:09 EST. <199606052051.NAA29664@phaeton.artisoft.com> Organization: X Consortium Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 19:14:07 EST From: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Things I note thus far: > > > > # ls -l /dev/tty > > crw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1, 0 5 Jun 10:16 /dev/tty > > > > really wants to be: > > > > crw-rw-rw- 1 root wheel 1, 0 5 Jun 10:16 /dev/tty > > > > otherwise xterm cannot open it. Breaking xterm is a Bad Thing (tm). > > Hmmm... > > I wonder if this change should wait until the xterm sets the ownership > on the pty (ie: maybe it should not happen at all). Specifically, you > really don't want someone to be able to open the slave side before the > pty is allocated, and has a master -- maybe not even then, until the > program that grabbed the master provides the slave process itself? > Hmmm... One of these days I should really sit down and understand masters and slaves and ttys and ptys and such. I'll just add it to my list of things to do. Maybe I'll get to it before my kids go off to college in ten years. :-) All I know is the permissions in the tar file don't match what I get if I remake the device entries with MAKEDEV. I also know that xterm works on dozens of platforms, including FreeBSD 2.1R. Now that doesn't mean I think xterm is perfect, or even good. In fact I think xterm is a big piece of shit. Nevertheless, it works. I'm just letting you all know about what looks like a problem. If FreeBSD is really planning on changing the default permissions of the device entries, I think it would be a good idea to fix xterm to work with the new permissions, and while you're at it submit a bug-report to the X Consortium or XFree86 with the necessary changes to xterm. -- Kaleb KEITHLEY