On Jan 10, 2017 18:19, "Greg KH" <g...@kroah.com> wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 06:04:46PM +0100, Lars Knudsen wrote: > I figured that made most sense :) > > Still, it would be good if we could have a rule to not grab the CDC interface > part if the device includes WebUSB functionality.
What exactly do you mean by "grab"? MM probing :) > The likelihood of a modem+WebUSB combo is so small that it must fall > in the category where potential rare exotic devices combining it must > be whitelisted and the rest be left alone. I think you misunderstand just how crazy firmware authors can be. I'm sure we will see those types of devices in the wild. ...But realistically how many? Bothering 99.9% to support the special case seems less logical than just finding the 0.1% and whitelisting it (if needed) > Also (probably more a generic udev/systemd patch) always give user (or at least > browser - if that differentiation is possible) access to WebUSB devices. That's a bit harder as it requires userspace to parse the headers and "know" to allow access to the device. I suggest a udev helper program for it. good luck, greg k-h
_______________________________________________ ModemManager-devel mailing list ModemManager-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/modemmanager-devel
