linux-kernel - Re: usbfs, claiming entire usb devices

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: <ac3eb2510905071335l473e30d3jbabb62d471607b8d@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 May 2009 22:35:07 +0200
From:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pantelis Koukousoulas <pktoss@...il.com>,
	USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: usbfs, claiming entire usb devices

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 21:55, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> 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?

You have one file per device, and that file has normal unix file
permissions. Userspace can grant access to that file by ownership or
by adding an ACL. What else do we need? Why would the kernel care who
opened the file, when the one was able to get through the normal file
access check?

Or did you mean some magic for an entire tree of devices below some
port? Like some sort of permission inheritance in the kernel?

Kay
--
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/