Re: destroy ppp(4) on closing tty

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Apr 8,  2:41am, cube%cubidou.net@localhost (Quentin Garnier) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: destroy ppp(4) on closing tty

| 
| --MIMEStream=_0+273200_2525998081651_98477257936
| Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
|       protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="poemUeGtc2GQvHuH"
| Content-Disposition: inline
| 
| 
| --poemUeGtc2GQvHuH
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
| Content-Disposition: inline
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
| 
| On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 12:35:52AM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > In article <20080407224332.GB2154%drowsy.duskware.de@localhost>,
| > Martin Husemann  <martin%duskware.de@localhost> wrote:
| > >On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:24:34AM +0900, Yasuoka Masahiko wrote:
| > >> I thought we should consider compatibility with other OSs, so I looked
| > >> FreeBSD and Linux.  FreeBSD 7.0 remains ppp on all cases, and CentOS
| > >> 4.5 destroys on all cases, there is nothing we learn from these OSs.
| > >
| > >I have no strong opinion, but either of those seem more consistent to
| > >me than to make close() behave differently depending on history of the
| > >device.
| >=20
| > Well, if pppd opened the device and pppd dies/exits/closes the device,
| > then the device should dissappear, otherwise in a system where you have
| > many ppp sessions happen dynamically you are end up with a lot of unused
| > ppp<N> interfaces. Of course you can teach pppd to remove the cloners...
| 
| No, because an unused ppp interface will be re-used, so you only end up
| with as many interfaces as the maximum number of concurrent sessions.

Which is not good either.

| I guess we could not make the closing from pppd destroy the interface so
| it is consistent.

We could.

christos