In article <1424061992.8664.4.ca...@gmail.com>,
Murdak wrote:
>Hi,
>my name is Pavel and i would like to know what should i do to try to fix
>the "Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances" problem with you guys
>mentoring me in GSOC (Google summer of code). I am a c
Hi,
my name is Pavel and i would like to know what should i do to try to fix
the "Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances" problem with you guys
mentoring me in GSOC (Google summer of code). I am a computer
engeneering student and i saw that the problem is at kernel level, so i
am a
On Apr 4, 8:16pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Small test.
thanks, I tested with script(1)...
christos
Small test.
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
main (){
int amaster, aslave, master;
char name[100] = "/dev/ptm";
struct termios termp;
struct winsize winp;
printf("Pty
On Apr 4, 7:28pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| On 04.04.2014 18:55, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > On Apr 4, 6:40pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
| > -- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple ins
On 04.04.2014 18:55, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Apr 4, 6:40pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
>
> | >
> | > Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
> point
> | >
On 04.04.2014 18:55, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Apr 4, 6:40pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
>
> | >
> | > Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
> point
> | >
On 04.04.2014 18:55, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Apr 4, 6:40pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
>
> | >
> | > Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
> point
> | >
On Apr 4, 6:40pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| >
| > Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
point
| > then so we get the correct one?
|
| Why? In general case we forever must ret
On 04.04.2014 18:40, Ilya Zykov wrote:
>>
>> Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount
>> point
>> then so we get the correct one?
>
> Why? In general case we forever must return first which mount first, next
> mount point,
> shouldn't replace previous, else incor
>
> Should we put a pointer in the pty node that points to the primary mount point
> then so we get the correct one?
Why? In general case we forever must return first which mount first, next mount
point,
shouldn't replace previous, else incorrect TIOCPTMGET(path) for already opened
pty we will
On Apr 4, 12:29pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| >
| > - I don't like the refactoring because it makes ptyfs less optional (brings
| > in code and headers to the base kernel). I think it is simpler to provide
Some misspelling corrections.
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs.h|2 +
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vfsops.c | 63 ++--
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vnops.c | 25 ++-
kern/tty_bsdpty.c | 11 +++-
kern/tty_ptm.c | 45 ---
>
> - I don't like the refactoring because it makes ptyfs less optional (brings
> in code and headers to the base kernel). I think it is simpler to provide
> an entry function to get the mount point instead, and this way all the guts
> of ptyfs stay in ptyfs.
Looks better, thank you.
> - I
On Apr 2, 10:36am, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
Looks very good. Some changes:
- I don't like the refactoring because it makes ptyfs less optional (brings
in code and headers to the base kernel). I think it is simpler to pr
On 01.04.2014 23:38, Ilya Zykov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> This patch introduces subject.
> Some code refactoring, because we have more stronger ptm - ptyfs binding.
> BSD pty compatibility improvement.
>
> Main explanation you can see in comments inside.
> Also I am not sure about, how, correctly relea
Hello!
This patch introduces subject.
Some code refactoring, because we have more stronger ptm - ptyfs binding.
BSD pty compatibility improvement.
Main explanation you can see in comments inside.
Also I am not sure about, how, correctly release unused vnode and return it
for system and call recla
On Mar 28, 12:37am, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Please, don't forget this, otherwise readdir returns released(free), but
still hashed inode numbers.
|
Got it, thanks!
christos
> | On 27.03.2014 12:51, Ilya Zykov wrote:
> | > Hello!
> | > Maybe you skipped:
> | > Minor corrections readdir and lookup for multi-mountpoint use.
> | >
> | > ptyfs_vnops.c |6 --
> | > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Please, don't forget this, otherwise readdir return
On Mar 27, 5:53pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
| --040300020609040305030709
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
|
| On
On 27.03.2014 12:51, Ilya Zykov wrote:
> Hello!
> Maybe you skipped:
> Minor corrections readdir and lookup for multi-mountpoint use.
>
> ptyfs_vnops.c |6 --
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Resending.
>
> Also main patch for subject.
> I didn't want locate many co
Hello!
Maybe you skipped:
Minor corrections readdir and lookup for multi-mountpoint use.
ptyfs_vnops.c |6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Resending.
Also main patch for subject.
I didn't want locate many code in ptm driver, but in real world,
it was the most suitable
In article <5332dc47.1060...@izyk.ru>, Ilya Zykov wrote:
>> |
>> | - error = (*ptm->makename)(ptm, l, name, sizeof(name), dev, ms);
>> | + error = pty_makename(ptm, l, name, sizeof(name), dev, ms);
>> |if (error)
>> |return error;
>> |
>>
>> Are you sure about this one? It
On Mar 26, 6:36pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| PTYFS has dependency from ptm driver.
| If config has NO_DEV_PTM, PTYFS isn't compiled.
| PTYFS is useless without ptm.
|
| How, better, this condition is fixed in config
PTYFS has dependency from ptm driver.
If config has NO_DEV_PTM, PTYFS isn't compiled.
PTYFS is useless without ptm.
How, better, this condition is fixed in config files?
> |
> | - error = (*ptm->makename)(ptm, l, name, sizeof(name), dev, ms);
> | + error = pty_makename(ptm, l, name, sizeof(name), dev, ms);
> | if (error)
> | return error;
> |
>
> Are you sure about this one? It is used when ptyfs is mounted and you have
> old pty nodes arou
On Mar 26, 2:09pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Index: fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_subr.c
| ===
| RCS file: /cvsil/nbcur/src/sys/fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_subr.c,v
| retrieving revision
Some minor improvements.
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_subr.c |4 ++--
kern/tty_bsdpty.c |2 +-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Ilya.
Index: fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_subr.c
===
RCS file: /cvsil/nbcur/src/sys/fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_subr
Hello!
Minor corrections readdir and lookup for multi-mountpoint use.
ptyfs_vnops.c |6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Ilya.
Index: fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vnops.c
===
RCS file: /cvsil/nbcur/src/sys/fs/ptyfs/pty
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:49:15AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Mar 24, 5:46pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
>
> | Hello!
> |
> | Please, tell me know if I wrong.
> | In general case I can't find
>
> You can't find from the driver where the device node file is located
>
OK, I thought so.
Thank you.
On Mar 24, 5:46pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Hello!
|
| Please, tell me know if I wrong.
| In general case I can't find(easy), from driver, where its device file
located on file system,
| its vnode or its directory
Hello!
Please, tell me know if I wrong.
In general case I can't find(easy), from driver, where its device file located
on file system,
its vnode or its directory vnode where this file located.
Such files can be many and I can't find what file used for current operation.
Maybe anybody had being at
In article <532def5e.2040...@izyk.ru>, Ilya Zykov wrote:
>> The mountpoint inside ptm_pty. Perhaps by having separate instances in the
>> ptm
>> driver?
>>
>> christos
>>
>>
>
>I think, it's not better.
>I can do so, but:
> 1. Now we have only 2 instances ptm_pty, one for ptyfs one for bsdpty
> The mountpoint inside ptm_pty. Perhaps by having separate instances in the ptm
> driver?
>
> christos
>
>
I think, it's not better.
I can do so, but:
1. Now we have only 2 instances ptm_pty, one for ptyfs one for bsdpty
and use its mainly for switch from one to other(we will have ptm_pty ar
On Mar 22, 3:50pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| >
| > I don't understand why you want to get rid of the mountpoint arg inside
| > the pty structure. It certainly makes things faster, and the pty can&#
>
> I don't understand why you want to get rid of the mountpoint arg inside
> the pty structure. It certainly makes things faster, and the pty can't
> be shared...
>
> christos
>
Sorry, but I don't understand too, what structure do you mean exactly and how.
Ilya.
On Mar 21, 10:23pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| If seriously, it's first working prototype for comments and objections.
|
| It's working as follow:
|
| Mount first ptyfs instance in /dev/pts(or other path) you can
DONE.
:)
If seriously, it's first working prototype for comments and objections.
It's working as follow:
Mount first ptyfs instance in /dev/pts(or other path) you can get access to
master side
through ptm{x} device.
Mount second ptyfs instance inside chroot(Example: /var/chroot/test/dev/pts),
In article <532c0718.3020...@izyk.ru>, Ilya Zykov wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Hello!
>
>Correct "ptyfs_readdir" for multi mount points use.
committed.
christos
Hello!
Correct "ptyfs_readdir" for multi mount points use.
ptyfs.h |1 +
ptyfs_subr.c |3 +--
ptyfs_vnops.c |2 +-
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Ilya.
Index: fs/ptyfs/ptyfs.h
===
RCS file: /cv
On Mar 19, 2014, at 1:17 PM, Ilya Zykov wrote:
>> |*--bp = '\0';
>> | - error = getcwd_common(cwdi->cwdi_rdir, rootvnode, &bp,
>> | + error = getcwd_common(mp->mnt_vnodecovered, cwdi->cwdi_rdir, &bp,
>> |buf, MAXBUF / 2, 0, l);
>>
>> Might as well pass NULL for cwdi->cwdi_rdir, si
> | > People did not like that.
> |
> | Didn't like what "if 1" or "return EBUSY"?
>
> The return EBUSY...
>
Ok, but bug will stay in the system, temporarily.
fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vfsops.c | 16 +++-
kern/tty_ptm.c |9 -
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions
On Mar 19, 9:51pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Ok, but bug will stay in the system, temporarily.
No problem, no worse than we have now.
christos
|
| fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vfsops.c | 16 +++-
| kern/tty_ptm.c
On Mar 19, 9:17pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| > Might as well pass NULL for cwdi->cwdi_rdir, since it does the same.
|
| But it is less obvious, and haven't advantage.
I guess you need cwdi earlier anyway to sh
> | *--bp = '\0';
> | - error = getcwd_common(cwdi->cwdi_rdir, rootvnode, &bp,
> | + error = getcwd_common(mp->mnt_vnodecovered, cwdi->cwdi_rdir, &bp,
> | buf, MAXBUF / 2, 0, l);
>
> Might as well pass NULL for cwdi->cwdi_rdir, since it does the same.
>
But it is less obvious, an
On Mar 19, 6:09pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Index: nbcur/src/sys/fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vfsops.c
| diff -u nbcur/src/sys/fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vfsops.c:1.1.1.1
nbcur/src/sys/fs/ptyfs/ptyfs_vfsops.c:1.7
| --- nbcur/src/sys/fs/ptyfs
Hello!
For not accumulate many changes and keep patch clear.
I am sending some error fix and modifications for future work and discussion
too.
Please, if possible, include it in current tree.
Little explanations:
1. We shouldn't mount more than one ptyfs.(dependency from unmount order).
Pa
On Mar 14, 5:08pm, campbell+netbsd-tech-k...@mumble.net (Taylor R Campbell)
wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| We could install a symlink at /dev/ptmx pointing to pts/ptmx, and we
| could install a device node at /dev/pts/ptmx, which gets hidden by the
| ptyfs
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:40:50 + (UTC)
From: chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas)
In article <20140314143532.ga17...@britannica.bec.de>,
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>Actually, it would simplify things a lot if /dev/ptmx was a symlink to
>/dev/pts/ptmx. The ptyfs instance co
Hello. I actually do use ptmx(4) without ptyfs, but I would be
willing for that to go away in NetBSD-7 or 8.
-Brian
On Mar 14, 2:40pm, Christos Zoulas wrote:
} Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
} In article <20140314143532.ga17...@britannica.bec.de>,
}
>
> if the first mount can only have [0..n-1] the second [n...2*n] etc...
>
"165:0 165:1" is ptm[x] first instance devices. "165:2 165:3" is ptm[x] second
instance devices ...
Every instance can have [0..N] pts devices.
Ilya.
On 14.03.2014 18:40, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20140314143532.ga17...@britannica.bec.de>,
> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:51:12AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>>> I don't think that putting ptmx inside devpts makes sense. OTOH, we
>>> could have multiple ptmx
On Mar 14, 6:49pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| > We first need to decide if disclosing gaps in the pty number is a security
| > issue. If not, it is simple; we just allocate the next free one and we don't
| > c
On 14.03.2014 17:51, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Mar 14, 5:29pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
>
> | Ok.
> |
> | 1. The main problem and question in this project(IMHO), it's how get access
> for
In article <20140314143532.ga17...@britannica.bec.de>,
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:51:12AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> I don't think that putting ptmx inside devpts makes sense. OTOH, we
>> could have multiple ptmx devices with different minor numbers and use that
>
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:51:12AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> I don't think that putting ptmx inside devpts makes sense. OTOH, we
> could have multiple ptmx devices with different minor numbers and use that
> as the differentiating factor for the pty devices. I think that's too complex
> and p
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Ilya Zykov wrote:
>>
>> | I have few questions about project.
>> | Christos, can I ask you about this?
>> | Please, if anybody has objections or already doing it, tell me know.
>>
>> Nobody is already doing it, and if you have questions, you came to the right
>> pl
On Mar 14, 5:29pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Ok.
|
| 1. The main problem and question in this project(IMHO), it's how get access
for every instance through one driver ptm[x].
| First version.
| We can do it as
>
> | I have few questions about project.
> | Christos, can I ask you about this?
> | Please, if anybody has objections or already doing it, tell me know.
>
> Nobody is already doing it, and if you have questions, you came to the right
> place.
>
> christos
>
Ok.
1. The main problem and quest
On Mar 14, 12:30pm, net...@izyk.ru (Ilya Zykov) wrote:
-- Subject: Enhance ptyfs to handle multiple instances.
| Hello!
| I desire develop this project.
Excellent.
| About me.
| I am system administrator in little Italy-Russia's firm. I live in Moscow.
| OS kernel it's my hobby mainly
Hello!
I desire develop this project.
About me.
I am system administrator in little Italy-Russia's firm. I live in Moscow.
OS kernel it's my hobby mainly.
I have free time now and can do this project about 1-2 months.
I have little experience with Linux kernel's tty layer and few accepted patches.
62 matches
Mail list logo
