Hi, > >> The device node is owned by root, what's the problem here? > > > > at least after the (first) chown() it potentially isn't owned by root, so > > your statement in that form is false. > > The mknod() already happens with the configured mode, so after the > chown() we already have the configured permissions/ownership set. well, (a) there is this does-already-exist-so-let's-preserve-it part, in which case no mknod() does happen and (b) yeah, that was pretty much my point: The mknod() already happens with the configured mode(!), but AFAICS _not_ with the configured owner/group(!?). As the config to my understanding is not supposed to say "make this read-only to _some_ group", but rather "make this read-only to group x", it's incorrect to apply the permissions intended for group x to some other group, just because it happens to be a group, too. The same applies for the chmod() part in the "preserve"-codepath. And yeah, after the chown(), everything should be fine (given that nobody has created a filehandle up to that point that wouldn't be allowed anymore after that point), which is why the subject of my mail reads "race condition" ;-) Florian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
