Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Use O_IGNORE_CTTY where appropriate

[Paul Eggert]

On 6/9/23 14:13, Sergey Bugaev wrote:
> Perhaps... but there's another reason I don't particularly like the
> idea of doing it on that level.

Yes, your points make sense. No big deal either way,


> Do you perhaps mean that POSIX does not require a
> newly opened terminal to become your ctty even if you don't pass
> O_NOCTTY?

Yes, that's right. The openat rationale mentions this topic.


> So if you do pass O_IGNORE_CTTY and the file is not your ctty, you
> just get a speedup. If you do pass O_IGNORE_CTTY and the file is your
> ctty, you get an fd that refers to your ctty... but doesn't behave
> like a ctty fd. Why you would want the latter, I have no idea (but
> also it of course wasn't me who came up with O_IGNORE_CTTY, so perhaps
> there is a use case).

I don't see why anybody would care if the O_IGNORE_CTTY behavior became 
the default. And if nobody cares, let's just make it the default. That 
way, you won't have to change glibc, Gnulib, git, coreutils, etc.

Do you have a scenario whereby making O_IGNORE_CTTY the default would 
break things? (It wouldn't break things as far as POSIX is concerned.)