Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 12:43:53 +0100 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, ticso@cicely.de Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Subject: Re: How to increase the max pty's on Freebsd 7.0? Message-ID: <200904081343.53600.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <20090408112538.GA68699@cicely7.cicely.de> References: <A48E38AADF784030A7496551F1416A3B@multiplay.co.uk> <20090402061003.GR13393@hoeg.nl> <20090408112538.GA68699@cicely7.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 13:25:39 Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:10:03AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote:
> > * Paul Schenkeveld <fb-hackers@psconsult.nl> wrote:
> > > Or change 'pts' to, for example, 'pt' so without changing utmp and
> > > related stuff we'll have space for a four digit pty number.
> >
> > I've noticed lots of apps already misbehave because of the pty(4) ->
> > pts(4) migration. I guess using a new naming scheme would totally break
> > stuff. There are lots of apps that do things like:
> >
> > if (strncmp(tty, "tty", 3) != 0 && strncmp(tty, "pts/", 4) != 0)
> > printf("Not a valid pseudo-terminal!\n");
> >
> > But those are just workarounds. Our utmp format is broken anyway. It's
> > not just UT_LINESIZE that's too small. I think we received many
> > complaints from people who want to increase UT_HOSTSIZE as well.
>
> Well, UT_HOSTSIZE can't hold a full sized IPv6 address.
RFC 1924 (still needs four more, but avoids ridiculously large UT_HOSTSIZE ;)
--
/"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org
\ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661
X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet
/ \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200904081343.53600.max>