Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:29:02 +0200 From: "Magnus Ringman" <bmr@google.com> To: current@freebsd.org Cc: Justin Hibbits <jrh29@alumni.cwru.edu> Subject: Re: What do you think ?: How should pseundo terminals behave ... Message-ID: <4f674ca50609261029s76432971yfc15171a3e89cb72@mail.google.com> In-Reply-To: <98FD6058-7220-48DB-AC24-F989FCB2AE11@ece.cmu.edu> References: <20060926111452.J91466@godot.imp.ch> <0C4B0125-11AA-4BDB-A4E3-163A6194AB68@alumni.cwru.edu> <98FD6058-7220-48DB-AC24-F989FCB2AE11@ece.cmu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/26/06, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <allbery@ece.cmu.edu> wrote: > > 3a) Hangup all processes attached to the client and switch them to > some kind of "dead" inode (which could be a fixed entity since all > operations on it except close() fail). (Don't real ttys do this?) -1. Yes and no. ttys do that on an actual hangup (when a hardware hangup happens), however PTYs are intended to allow emulating the full terminal line semantics, including hangup. Imo the case of "pty master side disappearing" is equivalent to "backing device (hardware) no longer exists", not "remote end hung up". Some OSes have a vhangup(2) call, which when called on an open device will send a hangup to all controlled processes, possibly also substituting a dead fd. One idea might be to allow pty pairs a "generation" concept, and have slave side lose the fd when the master side is close Magnus
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4f674ca50609261029s76432971yfc15171a3e89cb72>