5:44 p.m.
Hi,
src/lxc/lxc_container.c:lxcContainerPopulateDevices() has this table
of devices that are automatically created when an lxc container is
started.
const struct {
int maj;
int min;
mode_t mode;
const char *path;
} devs[] = {
{ LXC_DEV_MAJ_MEMORY, LXC_DEV_MIN_NULL, 0666, "/dev/null" },
{ LXC_DEV_MAJ_MEMORY, LXC_DEV_MIN_ZERO, 0666, "/dev/zero" },
{ LXC_DEV_MAJ_MEMORY, LXC_DEV_MIN_FULL, 0666, "/dev/full" },
{ LXC_DEV_MAJ_MEMORY, LXC_DEV_MIN_RANDOM, 0666, "/dev/random" },
{ LXC_DEV_MAJ_MEMORY, LXC_DEV_MIN_URANDOM, 0666, "/dev/urandom" },
};
Can we add '/dev/tty' to this list ?
We were trying to run 'smbpasswd -a user' inside a container without
/dev/tty and the fopen("/dev/tty", "w+") in smbpasswd made /dev/tty
a regular file, breaking man(1), less(1), and ofcourse smbpasswd :-)
Sure we can add /dev/tty to container's rc.local or something, but
wouldn't it be in the same category as say, /dev/null or /dev/zero ?
Sukadev
3:01 a.m.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:44:19PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
Hi,
src/lxc/lxc_container.c:lxcContainerPopulateDevices() has this table
of devices that are automatically created when an lxc container is
started.
const struct {
int maj;
int min;
mode_t mode;
const char *path;
} devs[] = {
{ LXC_DEV_MAJ_MEMORY, LXC_DEV_MIN_NULL, 0666, "/dev/null" },
{ LXC_DEV_MAJ_MEMORY, LXC_DEV_MIN_ZERO, 0666, "/dev/zero" },
{ LXC_DEV_MAJ_MEMORY, LXC_DEV_MIN_FULL, 0666, "/dev/full" },
{ LXC_DEV_MAJ_MEMORY, LXC_DEV_MIN_RANDOM, 0666, "/dev/random" },
{ LXC_DEV_MAJ_MEMORY, LXC_DEV_MIN_URANDOM, 0666, "/dev/urandom" },
};
Can we add '/dev/tty' to this list ?
We were trying to run 'smbpasswd -a user' inside a container without
/dev/tty and the fopen("/dev/tty", "w+") in smbpasswd made /dev/tty
a regular file, breaking man(1), less(1), and ofcourse smbpasswd :-)
Sure we can add /dev/tty to container's rc.local or something, but
wouldn't it be in the same category as say, /dev/null or /dev/zero ?
No, we can't just pass in the host's /dev/tty device to the
container. We need to virtualize it, but this is not really
very easy todo if we need to take account of multiple consoles.
Probably as a temporar hack, we can just symlink it to /dev/tty1
and try to figure out a proper fix later
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
10:18 a.m.
Daniel P. Berrange [berrange(a)redhat.com] wrote:
| On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:44:19PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
|
| No, we can't just pass in the host's /dev/tty device to the
| container. We need to virtualize it, but this is not really
| very easy todo if we need to take account of multiple consoles.
| Probably as a temporar hack, we can just symlink it to /dev/tty1
| and try to figure out a proper fix later
man tty(4) says:
It is a synonym for the controlling terminal of a process, if any.
so whether the process is in the host or in a container, /dev/tty will
is just the process's own controlling terminal right ? Two processes each
writing to "/dev/tty" would very well be writing to different terminals.
So, I don't see why it needs to be virtualized. Besides, linking /dev/tty1
to /dev/tty would not be the right I think.
Sukadev
4537
days inactive
4538
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Daniel P. Berrange -
Sukadev Bhattiprolu