[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141102141912.GA3637@euler>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 15:19:12 +0100
From: Felix Janda <felix.janda@...teo.de>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Add login_tty
> > int login_tty(int fd)
> > {
> > int ret;
> > setsid();
> > ret = ioctl(fd, TIOCSCTTY, (char *)0);
> > dup2(fd, 0);
> > dup2(fd, 1);
> > dup2(fd, 2);
> > if (fd>2) close(fd);
> > return ret;
> > }
>
> This behavior seems preferable in itself, but it's inconsistent with
> what glibc and probably the BSDs do, so it's probably not a good idea.
> glibc's behavior seems to match your previous version. This is leading
> me to think maybe the code in forkpty should just stay separate. Do
> you have other ideas?
I've checked that Free- Net- and OpenBSD have the behavior of the
previous version.
Another approach would be to _exit in the child if login_tty fails.
However the parent might interpret the exit code.
Felix
> Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
