[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: usbfs, claiming entire usb devices
    On Fri, 8 May 2009, Kay Sievers wrote:

    > You mentioned earlier, that you would need to match the holder of the
    > "lock" and the one that accesses the device?

    Yes. That is, a process shouldn't be allowed to access a locked device
    unless that process is the lock holder.

    > Wouldn't it be sufficient already, if you can take a "lock" at the
    > specific port, that prevents the kernel to access the device when it
    > shows up?

    I don't know how the people requesting this feature would feel about
    that. They seem to want to lock out other processes as well as locking
    out the kernel.

    > You thought of supporting a number of different users, with different
    > uids, or would that be a root-only action?

    A typical use case would be somebody running an emulator like QEMU. In
    theory there could be multiple QEMU processes running concurrently,
    each owning a different set of ports. The uids might be different or
    they might all be the same.

    Setting the lock permissions would be up to userspace.

    Alan Stern

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-08 16:13    [W:0.019 / U:10.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site