Am Donnerstag, 23. September 2004 00:16 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > So you are saying that whoever suspends a device the system needs
> > is screwed?
>
> Not necessarily. But the alternative involves rewriting drivers to make
> them automatically wake up their device when it is needed.
>
> > That is harsh, but certainly a workable approach. But then
> > suspending devices must be left to root. Is that acceptable?
>
> Should suspending a device be treated very differently from writing to it?
> The normal permissions mechanism, applied to sysfs, ought to take care of
> this.
If you don't check for devices being in use, then power control implies:
- unmounting filesystems
- removing swap space
- taking down network routes
- switching off the sysrq key
- erasing a device's firmware
I might have missed some implications.
Looks like CAP_SYS_HARDWARE to me.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170
Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on
who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM.
Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
