Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 20:21:17 +0200 From: "Magnus Ringman" <bmr@google.com> To: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <allbery@ece.cmu.edu> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What do you think ?: How should pseundo terminals behave ... Message-ID: <4f674ca50609261121v5ed0b2dalad3607634c965271@mail.google.com> In-Reply-To: <F0E30165-89B1-4A79-A376-615AF1655234@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> <4f674ca50609261029s76432971yfc15171a3e89cb72@mail.google.com> <8EECEF0C-8C94-4A7C-862A-633F67D3D229@ece.cmu.edu> <4f674ca50609261109s78a26d3dh1dd0a6dc8c112ca2@mail.google.com> <F0E30165-89B1-4A79-A376-615AF1655234@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: > > On Sep 26, 2006, at 14:09 , Magnus Ringman wrote: > > > Methinks Sir has it the wrong way around! > > Hangup on a hardware device -doesn't- void a program's access to the > > device. It just (optionally) sends the process a SIGHUP. That is why > > somebody (iirc, for SunOS < 5) invented vhangup(2) as a means for a > > new session owner to insure it was the only process using the > > terminal. > > I think you misunderstood: yes, physically you do not lose access, > but for security reasons *logically you should*, and that is why > vhangup() was invented. And, this being done, it is also a > reasonable --- and, more to the point, consistent --- model for what > happens when a pty slave loses its master (which *is* equivalent to > physically losing access). Ah, yes - my bad. We agree! My poor brain stem objected to the use of SIGHUP for losing master, on grounds that a hangup is a perfetly valid terminal event. Invalidating the fd is the important point. Magnus
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4f674ca50609261121v5ed0b2dalad3607634c965271>