From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-72419-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 30305 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2016 23:26:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 30287 invoked by uid 89); 10 Aug 2016 23:26:52 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=doable, ldv@altlinux.org, levin, ttyname_r
X-HELO: h2.hallyn.com
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 23:26:00 -0000
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux ttyname and ttyname_r: return link if appropriate
Message-ID: <20160810232640.GC20138@mail.hallyn.com>
References: <20160420185141.GA31095@ubuntumail>
 <20160727165711.GA27815@altlinux.org>
 <20160806020855.GA19897@mail.hallyn.com>
 <20160806084559.GS6702@vapier.lan>
 <20160806150002.GA24315@mail.hallyn.com>
 <20160809211841.GB2566@altlinux.org>
 <20160809213937.GA3392@mail.hallyn.com>
 <b4f86770-9dbe-99aa-ac84-d4c6cc753189@redhat.com>
 <20160810230351.GA20138@mail.hallyn.com>
 <20160810231818.GA20183@altlinux.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160810231818.GA20183@altlinux.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-SW-Source: 2016-08/txt/msg00337.txt.bz2

Quoting Dmitry V. Levin (ldv@altlinux.org):
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 06:03:51PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> [...]
> > But, even if we decide that part is dangerous, the part where we do not
> > return /dev/pts/N when /proc/self/fd/M is from a different devpts mount
> > than the /dev/pts/N in caller's namespace is I think very important, and
> > should at least be separately applied.
> 
> I agree.
> In that case, what should ttyname/ttyname_r set errno to? ENOTTY?

Ideally something like EXDEV, which updated userspace could recognize
as "shucks i'll just use /proc/self/fd/N", but that probably isn't
realistically do-able?