After dealing with more code that gets it wrong I was reminded of the numerous reasons why openpty() is such a broken API. The prototype of this "convenience" function is this:
int openpty(int *amaster, int *aslave, char *name, struct termios *termp, struct winsize *winp);
Now, sin number one should be obvious: the interface isn't const-correct. You're passing in the winp values, but there's no indication of that. Worse, you're doing the same with termp. Why worse? Well, think about how you use this API. Typically, you want to create the master/slave pair of the pseudo-terminal, then change the terminal settings of the slave. (Let's leave the master out of this for now - but the settings are not always symmetrical.)
But where do we get the terminal settings from? We don't have an open slave to base them on yet! So you find code doing a cfmakeraw() on stack junk and passing that in, because the API almost insists you do the wrong thing.
Indeed, doing it right, namely with a tcgetattr()/cfmakeraw()/tcsetattr() stanza, you'd expect term to be an out parameter, that you could then use - precisely opposite to how it actually works, and what const correctness suggests to the user. You can see some other amusing examples of how people worked around the API though.
I'm sure you will have spotted by now that the name parameter is outgoing, but has no len. It's therefore impossible to use without the risk of buffer overflow.
This API is not going to score well on the Rusty scale. What's worst of all about openpty(), though, is that it's non-standard, so almost every piece of code out there keeps its own private copy of this broken, pointless interface. Yay!