| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 15:55:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> To: Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> cc: Pantelis Koukousoulas <pktoss@...il.com>, USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: usbfs, claiming entire usb devices There is a proposal afoot to give user programs the ability to claim ownership of an entire USB device, rather than just individual interfaces. In fact, we'd like processes to be able to own whatever device gets plugged into a particular port on a particular hub. The question is how the API should work. A simple approach is to have a sysfs or usbfs file correspond to each port; when a process opens the file it would be granted ownership of any device plugged into that port. Since the file is automatically closed when the process ends, we wouldn't have to worry about ownership never getting released. But there's a snag. When a process goes to open the usbfs file for a device, the kernel needs to know whether or not the process owns that device. In other words, we need to figure out whether or not the process has opened the corresponding port file. Is there a simple way to do this? Is it reasonable to search through all the process's fd's, looking for one that matches a particular inode? Or would a completely different API approach be better? Thanks, Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists