On Fri, 8 May 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2009 18:51:14 schrieb Alan Stern: > > > It should probably just allow it for either process that has the fd. If > > > the user program claimed a port and then forked, it was probably > > > intending to share ports. > > > > You don't understand the problem. Suppose a program tries to open a > > usbfs device file. How does the kernel know whether or not that > > process has opened the corresponding port file? I suppose we could > > Don't allow it ever. If somebody opens the port file all access of the device > must come through the port fd. If you want an usbfs handle, allow creation > of it through the port fd. That's not a bad idea, although I don't know how to implement it. It does have the disadvantage of not allowing use of the normal libusb device-open routine, which is a significant drawback. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
