Re: usbfs, claiming entire usb devices

[Alan Stern]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/