Riny Qian wrote:
> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>>>> DJM-2 2.7.2 ACLs for usb etc devices
>>>> Are you saying that if user "bob" logins in on vt1 and
>>>> user "alice" logins on vt2 then there will be an ACL of
>>>> both of them on the audio and usb devices ?
>>> Right. Actually at the begining, we wanted to group
>>> all these devices (add a console group in the system,
>>> and dynamically add/remove the logged in user into
>>> the console group upon logging in/out. But ACL seems
>>> better than group, so we chose ACL. [it was recommeded
>>> by Casper Dik.]
>> I agree that an ACL is much better than using a group.
>> However see below for what appears to be a TX and
>> device allocation interaction.
>>>> I don't think this is a good idea.  I'm also concerned
>>>> about how this interacts with device allocation and
>>>> Trusted Extensions.
>>> We don't see any impact on the device allocation
>>> and Trusted Extensions.
>> What label are the vt devices running at when TX is
>> enabled ?
>> What happens in this (on TX) case:
>> User bob logs in graphically with gdm/dtlogin and allocates
>> the audio device.  This means that the audio device
>> should only able available to bob.
>> Now User alice does a login to /dev/vt2, from what you
>> said above there would be an ACL added for Alice even
>> though the device is owned by bob because allocate(1M)
>> changed the ownership.
>> That seems wrong and completely counter to the whole
>> purpose of device allocation.
>> So I believe you do have interaction with device allocation.  At least
>> based on the documentation you have provided, or some
>> how it isn't clear to me how this works with
>> device allocation.
> Currently (without virtual console), both logindevperm(4) and
> allocate(1) are not aware of each other (even non-TX):
>   Rlogin to a system on which nobody has logged in; allocate
>   audio device to Bob, then Bob will own the audio device (
>   BSM is enabled); Then Alice logs in on the system console,
>   and Alice owns the audio device; When Alice exits, the audio
>   device is owned by root.

I agree that this is a current problem.  Bob just looses
access to the device he had allocated and Alice gets it
instead for the duration of her login.

> In fact, as long as there's more than one program managing these
> devices, there's conflict.


> So it seems that our ACL proposal for other console devices in
> /etc/logindevperm is fine, and it does not introduce any regression.

What your proposal does is allow multiple people access
to the device at the same time.  That isn't possible today.

I believe that makes it worse because now you have the
potential for them both to be trying to use the device
at the same time.

Darren J Moffat

Reply via email to