[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0905081000140.3010-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
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, 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
--
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