[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "can't open pseudo-terminal" error with glibc 2.1 (potato)



On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 03:01:02PM -0300, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> Collins M.  Ben  (bmc@visi.net) wrote on 9 April 1999 11:18:
>  >Then again maybe you could read the docs. You have two choices...
>
> I tried...
>
>  >a) rm -f /dev/ptmx
>
> Ah, I hadn't noticed this in /dev...
>
>  >b) make sure your kernel (2.2.x) is compiled with devpts support
>  >   and mount /dev/pts/ (read the kernel docs)
>
> It has. Then I tried mount -t devpts, but ssh continues to say
> "couldn't allocate a pseudo-terminal". Strangely, it only happens with
> rwin-dows clients, and one AIX one. It doesn't happen with linux.
>
>  >This stems from the fact that glibc 2.1 enables use of Unix98 pty's and if
>  >/dev/ptmx is present then glibc expects /dev/pts/ to be mounted.
>
> It seems also that the applications must have support for this, no?
> What was /dev/ttyp2 becomes /dev/pts/2, etc. So if the application
> doesn't support it, booom...

Apps must use glibc's pty related functions and not try to manipulate
them directly. In this way they do not break.

> As I said, even after doing "mount -t devpts" things didn't change.
> The problem happens only with ssh, not with telnet. I recompiled ssh
> with the new library. Also, after the mount "ls -l /dev/pts" says it
> doesn't exist!

Please notice that I said mount it at /dev/pts/ (as in mkdir /dev/pts
then mount).

> Furthermore, I think that the library shouldn't break apps if the
> unix98 API isn't being used. Must I remove /dev/ptmx for this to
> happen?

a) rm -f /dev/ptmx

With this you wont have to worry about them at all.

--
-----    -- - -------- --------- ----  -------  -----  - - ---   --------
Ben Collins <b.m.collins@larc.nasa.gov>                  Debian GNU/Linux
OpenLDAP Core - bcollins@openldap.org                 bcollins@debian.org
UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems         The Choice of the GNU Generation
------ -- ----- - - -------   ------- -- ---- - -------- - --- ---- -  --


Reply to: