linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] parport/ppdev: fix registration of sysctl entries

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080706190924.652e7cde@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:09:24 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu <eduard.munteanu@...ux360.ro>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] parport/ppdev: fix registration of sysctl entries

> But isn't it incorrect to assume that sharing protocols allow multiple
> separate users? Why not have an userspace server mux/demux requests?

Why do that ?

> The parallel port itself is not designed to be shared, so even if the
> device supports it, it does not mean we should allow independent
> access. We really should have an userspace lib/server to do this.

I suggest you look at the actual hardware examples in more detail. Most of
them are happy to share but need to own the port temporarily. The manner
in which they lock/unlock their use of the port tends to be very specific
to the device so it makes sense to have the current desgign.
--
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/