[ntp:hackers] Any NetBSD and/or tty ioctl gurus?

Frank Kardel kardel at ntp.org
Mon Jan 16 13:06:48 UTC 2006


Hal Murray wrote:

>I'm trying to setup 3 refclocks on a vanilla PC running NetBSD 3.0 and ntp-dev
>
>The first clock works but the other two get this:
>
>26 Dec 21:13:05 ntpd[821]: ioctl(TIOCSCTTY, 0) fails for clock I/O: Operation 
>not permitted
>26 Dec 21:13:05 ntpd[821]: configuration of 127.127.20.2 failed
>26 Dec 21:13:06 ntpd[821]: ioctl(TIOCSCTTY, 0) fails for clock I/O: Operation 
>not permitted
>26 Dec 21:13:06 ntpd[821]: configuration of 127.127.26.3 failed
>
>The only place I find any reference to TIOCSCTTY is in libntp/iosignal.c
>
>I'm not familiar with the tty ioctls.  The comment a few lines up is 
>suspicious:
>                 * another question is: how can you do multiple SIGIO from 
>several
>                 * ttys (as they all should be CTTYs), wondering...
>
>Anybody recognize this quirk?
>
My comment (old - but still true for some implementations).

>  Does NetBSD just not support more than one 
>refclock?
>  
>
Stock NetBSD doesn't - as some other systems (All that define
USE_FSETOWNCTTY during autoconfig -
see configure.in) may not either.

>Seems to be that way.  I found a note from the NetBSD on AMD-64 list that 
>says only one.  (0 if in debug mode.)  It also says:
>  For SIGIO you need a CTTY.
>    There can only be one CTTY.
>    Thus you can get only SIGIO from one CTTY. This seems
>    to be the case with many BSD derived systems (*BSD, Ultrix).
>
>Looks like everybody agrees that this path won't work.
>
>How does this work on FreeBSD?  Is there any good documentation for the tty 
>ioctls and/or is there a reasonable chance of fixing this on NetBSD?
>
>  
>
Fixed with NetBSD 3.99.8 (aka. some form of a current -current version)
and above - christos at netbsd.org removed that restriction from the tty
handling code.

>I've seen suggestions of using the parallel port.  (I don't remember if that 
>was for 1 PPS signal or several.)  I'd like to avoid that mostly for 
>mechanical reasons.
>
>
>Maybe I should pop up a level.  Is this a strange configuration?
>
no - but not really common.

>  Is it silly 
>to use more than one refclock on a system?  I was hoping to be able to 
>compare clocks.
>  
>
Works somewhat - if they are of the same type they'll certainly compete
for resources (IO/timestamps) - especially
when they are in sync 8-). So the comparison is limited once you get down
into interrupt latency ranges.

Frank



More information about the hackers mailing list