Florian Zumbiehl wrote: > 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(!?). No, it happens with owner/group root, since that's who udev runs as (unless I'm missing something). Do you not trust that owner/group for some reason? :-) If you still don't trust root/root, how would you suggest fixing it, given that there is no system call to set owner, group, and mode all at once? If the chown() / chmod() calls are reversed, then you have the same problem in the other direction...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
