Am Montag, 9. Januar 2006 23:38 schrieb Aurelien Jarno:
> > but "has to use it"? I think that is wrong. noone forces you.
> > sure, using the different directories would allow people to use
> > acl, which is not possible on usbfs.
>
> Has to use it, because /proc/bus/usb is not usable anymore if the
> permissions are wrong. I already received dozen of mails when udev
> stopped to changes the permissions of /proc/bus/usb in favor of
> /dev/bus/usb.
wouldn't it be better to fix it and set permissions on both, if both
exist? forcing people to upgrade is a very bad idea, and often
not possible at all.
> Note that you can use ACL on /dev/bus/usb, not on /proc/bus/usb.
I know. openct runs as root, so neither matters to us. also I wonder:
are all ioctl available, if you have write access to the device? I thought
ioctl's might be sometimes limited to root, but I'm not sure about that.
> As said in my previous mail, %03d is now used with newer versions of
> udev.
good. thanks.
> It's not my fault if openct uses some fields incorrectly. Note also that
> the problem has been fixed.
well, libusb exposes the field, so users are allowed to use it.
chageing the content from one version to another is hardly the
users fault.
> That would be a good idea, but I don't want to diverge from other
> distributions with an incompatible library. Please note that upstream is
> currently writting libusb version 1.0.0, which will be ABI and API
> incompatible, but will have a lot of new features. Maybe you can ask
> upstream about that.
ok, will try once more.
> > since when did /proc/bus/usb did have permissions?
>
> For a long time they were handled via hotplug.
ah. hmm, I didn't know you could chown or chmod that files
at all. maybe that was added later? IIRC the first usbdevfs couldn't
do that, but I might be wrong.
> It's not because your application don't need to handle permissions that
> you should ignore them. Most of the applications that use libusb are
> using the permissions.
well, I use the device. all I need is to open() and ioctl() and poll().
So I can ignore the permissions very well, as I don't touch the devices
in any other way. and the services offered by my apps ("ifdhandler")
are restricted by the "scard" group already, so I think that is fine.
> libusb uses /dev/bus/usb as first, and /proc/bus/usb as fallback. This
> is necessary because contrary to you, the vast majority of users do care
> about permissions of their usb devices.
>
> Therefore dirname and filename are using the name in /dev/bus/usb, which
> are now the same as /proc/bus/usb, so that openct is now *working
> correctly*.
ok, thanks.
Andreas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
