Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:05:46 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Remove pty(4) Message-ID: <53F4E37A.6020702@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <CACYV=-E1BA3rHP5s%2BCs-X-J5CNAaSNxDgqPkgnJu3uUXCyaUGA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACYV=-E1BA3rHP5s%2BCs-X-J5CNAaSNxDgqPkgnJu3uUXCyaUGA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/20/14 11:00 AM, Davide Italiano wrote: > One of my personal goals for 11 is to get rid of cloning mechanism > entirely, and pty(4) is one of the few in-kernel drivers still relying > on such mechanism. > It's not possible, at least to my understanding, converting pty(4) to > cdevpriv(9) as happened with other drivers. This is mainly because we > always need a pair of devices (/dev/ptyXX and /dev/ttyXX) and > userspace loops over ptyXX and after it successfully opens it tries to > open the other one with the same suffix. So, having a single device is > not really enough. > My option, instead, is that of removing pty(4), which is nothing more > than a compatibility driver, and move pmtx(4) code somewhere else. > The main drawback of the removal of this is that it makes impossible > to run FreeBSD <= 7 jails and SSH into them. I personally don't > consider this a huge issue, in light of the fact that FreeBSD-7 has > been EOL for a long time, but I would like to hear other people > comments. > > The code review for the proposed change can be found here: > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D659 > > If I won't get any objection I'll commit this in one week time, i.e. > August 27th. > I don't think that we want to break userland apps pre-7.x. Do you mean just jails are broken? Or is all pre-7.x compat? I believe either is dicey. What is the reason for getting rid of cloning? What is the difficulty in maintaining the old interface? -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53F4E37A.6020702>