From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751523AbdDBVlP (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2017 17:41:15 -0400 Received: from mail-qt0-f176.google.com ([209.85.216.176]:36826 "EHLO mail-qt0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750983AbdDBVlN (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2017 17:41:13 -0400 Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 17:41:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicolas Pitre To: Andi Kleen cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] minitty: a minimal TTY layer alternative for embedded systems In-Reply-To: <87pogur0y9.fsf@firstfloor.org> Message-ID: References: <20170401222119.25106-1-nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> <87pogur0y9.fsf@firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LFD 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2 Apr 2017, Andi Kleen wrote: > Nicolas Pitre writes: > > > > Of course, making it "mini" means there are limitations to what it does: > > > > - This supports serial ports only. No VT's, no PTY's. > > No PTYs seems like a big limitation. This means no sshd? Again, my ultimate system target is in the sub-megabyte of RAM. I really doubt you'll be able to fit an SSH server in there even if PTYs were supported, unless sshd (or dropbear) can be made really tiny. Otherwise you most probably have sufficient resources to run the regular TTY code. That being said, maybe there could be a way to cheaply support PTYs. I just didn't investigate it. > > But again, most small embedded systems simply don't need those things. > > They don't need a (debug) way to login over the network? Hard to > believe. This most likely won't be via a standard shell. Nicolas From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nicolas.pitre@linaro.org (Nicolas Pitre) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 17:41:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PATCH v2 0/5] minitty: a minimal TTY layer alternative for embedded systems In-Reply-To: <87pogur0y9.fsf@firstfloor.org> References: <20170401222119.25106-1-nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> <87pogur0y9.fsf@firstfloor.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, 2 Apr 2017, Andi Kleen wrote: > Nicolas Pitre writes: > > > > Of course, making it "mini" means there are limitations to what it does: > > > > - This supports serial ports only. No VT's, no PTY's. > > No PTYs seems like a big limitation. This means no sshd? Again, my ultimate system target is in the sub-megabyte of RAM. I really doubt you'll be able to fit an SSH server in there even if PTYs were supported, unless sshd (or dropbear) can be made really tiny. Otherwise you most probably have sufficient resources to run the regular TTY code. That being said, maybe there could be a way to cheaply support PTYs. I just didn't investigate it. > > But again, most small embedded systems simply don't need those things. > > They don't need a (debug) way to login over the network? Hard to > believe. This most likely won't be via a standard shell. Nicolas