mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Pantelis Koukousoulas <pktoss@gmail.com>,
	USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: usbfs, claiming entire usb devices
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 18:15:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090509181559.664b141a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ac3eb2510905091000y4c7a6448uce799d00d500fffe@mail.gmail.com>

> > Yes.  That is, a process shouldn't be allowed to access a locked device
> > unless that process is the lock holder.
> 
> You think the pid or the uid would make more sense?

How about neither ?

The standard Unix behaviour is to open the file O_EXCL if you want
exclusivity. Neither uid or pid are helpful or work in the many
environments where you want security - in particular where (as is very
common with user space driver type code) you want parts of your code
running setuid and parts not, as two processes with different pid and uid
values.

If O_EXCL is interpeted as exclusive access (versus kernel and re-open of
the same node) then you can implement the rest of the sematics in user
space.

Alan

  reply	other threads:[~2009-05-09 17:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1295ed070905071015n5a604f93je366faf55b695e47@mail.gmail.com>
2009-05-07 19:55 ` Alan Stern
2009-05-07 20:35   ` Kay Sievers
2009-05-07 21:18     ` Alan Stern
2009-05-07 21:39       ` Kay Sievers
2009-05-07 22:47         ` Alan Stern
2009-05-07 23:12           ` Kay Sievers
2009-05-08 14:06             ` Alan Stern
2009-05-09 17:00               ` Kay Sievers
2009-05-09 17:15                 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2009-05-09 17:23                   ` Kay Sievers

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090509181559.664b141a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=kay.sievers@vrfy.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pktoss@gmail.com \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®