Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 May 2009 10:06:27 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alan Stern <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |