Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncoast.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cwruecmp!atvax!ncoast!bsa From: bsa@ncoast.UUCP (The WITNESS) Newsgroups: net.bugs,net.unix Subject: Re: Why 4BSD 'stty' uses stdout instead of stdin Message-ID: <265@ncoast.UUCP> Date: Fri, 17-Aug-84 14:28:58 EDT Article-I.D.: ncoast.265 Posted: Fri Aug 17 14:28:58 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Aug-84 03:46:57 EDT References: <895@trwrb.UUCP> <1228@dalcs.UUCP> <747@dual.UUCP> <46@rlgvax.UUCP> <318@wucs.UUCP> <5024@utcsrgv.UUCP> <3954@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: North Coast XENIX, Cleveland Lines: 37 [The world is a Klein bottle] > From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn) > At BRL, general terminals do not have write permission enabled; > rather, the execute bit indicates whether a "write" or "talk" > connection is permitted, and the utilities dealing with this > have all been changed to understand the convention. This pretty > much solves the problem of obnoxious users messing around with > your terminal from elsewhere. I have two questions about this: (1) Why the heck is ioctl not protected? I would think that "owner or root" would be a darned good idea; is there something complex about this that pre- vents protecting the ioctl() system call? (2) This suggestion would be enhanced by (1) above, but is workable anyway; if you can tell that you are doing an ioctl get, why not GET from fd 0 and SET from fd 1? This would be MUCH easier on everyone; and makes for a logical shell syntax: (this is v7 stty I show) $ stty -l /dev/tty1 ; : this is likely to get the guy on tty1 upset... I can't see any problems with this way of doing it; am I missing something? --bsa -- Brandon Allbery: decvax!cwruecmp{!atvax}!ncoast!bsa: R0176@CSUOHIO.BITNET ^ Note name change! 6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, OH 44131 <> (216) 524-1416 "The more they overthink the plumbin', the easier 'tis tae stop up the drain."