woody: devpts, pppd, and kernel-2.6: failed connection to /dev/pts/0
Hi,
Today I've installed kernel-image-2.6.0 from backports.org on my woody
pc. Until now I've always used self-compiled kernels, but decided to
change to the kernel-images now. Those have devpts compiled in,while I
had that never in my own kernels. Not sure why, but in any case, I never
had problems. To use devtps, I added it to /etc/fstab:
devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0
Reboot worked ok, save for a couple of (hopefully) unrelated warnings.
The output of mount looks correct to me:
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
But, using kernel-image-2.6.0, I lost my internet connection over pppoe.
Investigation showed that with my 2.4 kernel without devpts, pppd would
establish a connection over /dev/ttyp0:
Dec 31 17:38:24 sonic pppd[275]: pppd 2.4.1 started by root, uid 0
Dec 31 17:38:24 sonic pppd[275]: Serial connection established.
Dec 31 17:38:24 sonic pppd[275]: using channel 1
Dec 31 17:38:24 sonic pppd[275]: Using interface ppp0
Dec 31 17:38:24 sonic pppd[275]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyp0
Dec 31 17:38:25 sonic pppd[275]: sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x0>
<magic
0xf96c480e>]
Dec 31 17:38:25 sonic pppd[275]: rcvd [LCP ConfAck id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x0>
<magic
0xf96c480e>]
[...]
Using the kernel-image, pppd tries to use /dev/pts/<num>, which fails,
and leads to a timeout:
Dec 31 18:06:34 sonic pppd[447]: pppd 2.4.1 started by root, uid 0
Dec 31 18:06:34 sonic pppd[447]: Serial connection established.
Dec 31 18:06:34 sonic pppd[447]: Using interface ppp0
Dec 31 18:06:34 sonic pppd[447]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/pts/0
Dec 31 18:07:05 sonic pppd[447]: LCP: timeout sending Config-Requests
Dec 31 18:07:05 sonic pppd[447]: Connection terminated.
All amounts of googling and trying stuff lead to nothing. Unfortunately,
after booting 2.6, I lost my mouse with the 2.4 kernel, so now I have to
choose between no internet with 2.6 and no mouse with 2.4. Hopefully
somebody knows how to fix one of those, preferably the devpts issue :)
Thanks
Reply to: