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: <ac3eb2510905071612v61a27760hffc684ee87df9249@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 May 2009 01:12:07 +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 Fri, May 8, 2009 at 00:47, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:

>> Or is that a specific requirement where things would go wrong when the
>> kernel binds to a device first?
>
> You've got it.  Sometimes devices are in a very precarious state (such
> as during a firmware update) and they need to go into a particular
> configuration.  Letting the kernel install some random configuration at
> such times doesn't work.

I see.

You mentioned earlier, that you would need to match the holder of the
"lock" and the one that accesses the device?

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?

You thought of supporting a number of different users, with different
uids, or would that be a root-only action?

Thanks,
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/