On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 03:55:57PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote: > Alan Stern wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, David Vrabel wrote: > > > >> If process A has an interface claimed and process B disconnects the > >> kernel driver then process B can also claim the interface. > >> > >> I think USBFSDEV_DISCONNECT shouldn't disconnect the usbfs driver. > > > > That statement certainly could be the subject of a prolonged > > discussion. Hence I'm CC-ing the libusb mailing list; people there may > > have some strong opinions on this matter. > > > >> Something like this (untested) patch. Is this the correct approach or > >> should userspace processes be more co-operative? e.g., by making > >> libusb's libusb_kernel_driver_active() returning false if driver == > >> "usbfs" and expecting users to only call libusb_detach_kernel_driver() > >> if one is active. > > > > There might be programs which really _do_ want to unbind other > > programs, so ruling out that capability in the kernel is likely to be a > > mistake. My preference is to let userspace sort this out. > > If we do want to allow this behaviour we certainly don't want user B > able to disconnect the usbfs driver from a device in use by user A. Why not? How do we tell if a device is "in use"? What is the problem you are seeing here? thanks, greg k-h -- 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
