Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> /dev/ptmx can be a symlink ptmx -> pts/ptmx, and we add a ptmx instance 
>> inside the devpts filesystem.  Each devpts filesystem is responsible for 
>> its own pool of ptys, with own numbering, etc.
>>
>> This does mean that entries in /dev/pts are more than just plain device 
>> nodes, which they are now (you can cp -a a device node from /dev/pts 
>> into another filesystem and it will still "just work"), but I doubt this 
>> actually matters to anyone.  If anyone cares, now I guess would be a 
>> good time to speak up.
> 
> Agreed.   That is another legitimate path.  And if all you care about is
> isolation and not dealing with the general class of problems with the
> global device number to device mapping that is sane.  I know we have
> several other virtual devices that we tend to care about but ptys are
> the real world pain point.
> 

Thinking about it further, allowing this restriction would also allow a 
whole lot of cleanups inside the pty setup, since it would eliminate the 
need to do a separate lookup to find the corresponding devpts entry in 
pty_open().  The benefit here comes from the closer coupling between the 
pty and the devpts filesystem and isn't at all related to namespaces, 
but it's a very nice side benefit.

	-hpa
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers