Right now, a user which has read privileges to usbdevfs devices can't get
the driver bound to an interface via the usbdevfs interface.
However, it is exposed via the devices file so I don't think this is on
purpose.
Would a patch like this be acceptable? (Untested, but it compiles)
JE
===== devio.c 1.16 vs edited =====
--- 1.16/drivers/usb/devio.c Fri Nov 29 01:16:17 2002
+++ edited/devio.c Thu Dec 5 15:21:39 2002
@@ -1139,13 +1139,32 @@
struct dev_state *ps = (struct dev_state *)file->private_data;
int ret = -ENOIOCTLCMD;
- if (!(file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
- return -EPERM;
down_read(&ps->devsem);
if (!ps->dev) {
up_read(&ps->devsem);
return -ENODEV;
}
+
+ switch (cmd) {
+ case USBDEVFS_GETDRIVER:
+ ret = proc_getdriver(ps, (void *)arg);
+ break;
+
+ case USBDEVFS_CONNECTINFO:
+ ret = proc_connectinfo(ps, (void *)arg);
+ break;
+
+ case USBDEVFS_DISCSIGNAL:
+ ret = proc_disconnectsignal(ps, (void *)arg);
+ break;
+ }
+
+ if (!(file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
+ ret = -EPERM;
+
+ if (ret != -ENOIOCTLCMD)
+ goto out;
+
switch (cmd) {
case USBDEVFS_CONTROL:
ret = proc_control(ps, (void *)arg);
@@ -1175,14 +1194,6 @@
inode->i_mtime = CURRENT_TIME;
break;
- case USBDEVFS_GETDRIVER:
- ret = proc_getdriver(ps, (void *)arg);
- break;
-
- case USBDEVFS_CONNECTINFO:
- ret = proc_connectinfo(ps, (void *)arg);
- break;
-
case USBDEVFS_SETINTERFACE:
ret = proc_setintf(ps, (void *)arg);
break;
@@ -1209,10 +1220,6 @@
ret = proc_reapurbnonblock(ps, (void *)arg);
break;
- case USBDEVFS_DISCSIGNAL:
- ret = proc_disconnectsignal(ps, (void *)arg);
- break;
-
case USBDEVFS_CLAIMINTERFACE:
ret = proc_claiminterface(ps, (void *)arg);
break;
@@ -1225,6 +1232,8 @@
ret = proc_ioctl(ps, (void *) arg);
break;
}
+
+out:
up_read(&ps->devsem);
if (ret >= 0)
inode->i_atime = CURRENT_TIME;
