Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Aug 2004 12:47:15 -0400 (EDT) | From | Eric Lammerts <> | Subject | Re: dynamic /dev security hole? |
| |
I guess I'm missing something here...
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Alan Cox wrote: > User closes device > I have linked copy (not open) > Device unloaded
At this point, udev (with the chown/chmod patch) would chown your linked copy (before unlinking the original device node), right?
> I open the linked copy
So this wouldn't work.
> This makes new device load for me. > > > I'm just trying to point out that the order of operations matters here > because the old nodes must all be dead before the new device. Its even > worse for less dynamic numbering.
The only problem I can think of is a race when a new device appears with the same major/minor before udev gets a chance to do its stuff, eg.
1) User closes device 2) I have linked copy (not open) 3) Device unloaded 4) New device appears 5) I open the linked copy 6) Udev chowns/chmods old device node (triggered by 3)) --> too late
Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |