At Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:01:10 -0500, H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At least, it's not surprising that the "minimal case" Branden provided in > BTS segfaults. It's nothing to do with getpt(); the code is using in > uninitialized pointer *pts.
Yes. This test program is wrong. It needs to replace *pts to pts, or allocate *pts. > Barring that, however, I have just confirmed that on libc6 (2.3.1-3), > getpt() does not return an error if /dev/pts is chmod'd to 0, as Branden > suggested. I found that it was still successfully allocating a pty file > descriptor for the pty. However, ptsname() will return a NULL pointer, > because it won't have the permissions to read the pty. Your analisys is right. xterm needs to fix. > I'm not sure if this should be considered a bug, since getpt() *does* > allocate a new pty, even if it is unreadable. I have confirmed that a new > pty does appear in /dev/pts, and gets removed once the test program exits. > In other words, it *does* successfully allocate a pty and returns the file > descriptor, as described by the .info documentation. Yup. > Whether or not getpt() should check for the pty's readability is another > issue, and I don't think libc is "buggy" there either --- one really > should check the return value of ptsname() (or other pts-accessing calls), > which *is* returning NULL in this case when it can't read the pty. > > At any rate, I tried this with xterm, and got: > xterm: unable to access pty device: Permission denied > > I'm not sure if Branden worked around the problem in xterm, or upstream > has fixed the problem. Perhaps this bug should be closed. I also don't know it's already fixed, but at least I think it's not glibc bug. Branden, please check your latest X11, and could I close this bug? -- gotom
