Re: PTS alocation problem with 2.6.4/2.6.5

[Andrew Morton]

Jamie Lokier <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > You need a glibc upgrade - we broke things for really old glibc's.  We're
> > (slowly) working on fixing it up.
> 
> Looking at patch-2.6.4, there are plenty of minor changes to the pty
> code but nothing that looks like it would break userspace except for
> _very_ old glibcs that don't know about /dev/pts at all and just used
> the legacy ones.
> 
> I have some _non-glibc_ pty code that I wish to keep working.  Can you
> briefly explain how it breaks with moderately old glibcs such as the
> glibc-2.3.3 that's said to be inadequate, and therefore what interface
> change is needed in non-glibc code?
> 

Andrzej is using a glibc that "does not support minors > 255".

The oldest glibc I have around here is glibc-2.2.5-34 and it passes
Andrzej's `for a in $(seq 4);do ssh -t remote tty;done' test OK.  I do not
know at which version they started to permit larger values for minors, but
it must have been some time ago.

A small number of people are hurting from the removal of first-fit pty
allocation and I do think it needs to be put back.  I have a patch but
neither Peter nor I have actually tested it yet.  I'll aim to get it into
2.6.6.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/