lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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:0.131 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans