public inbox for linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>,
	Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] USB: core: add USBDEVFS_REVOKE ioctl
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:28:40 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e73035d1bae5d0c355166fb46f0f5f2f07752b3c.camel@hadess.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YmarwaNQYn1GwFbQ@kroah.com>

On Mon, 2022-04-25 at 16:10 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 03:23:15PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > There is a need for userspace applications to open USB devices
> > directly,
> > for all the USB devices without a kernel-level class driver, and
> > implemented in user-space.
> > 
> > End-user access is usually handled by the uaccess tag in systemd,
> > shipping application-specific udev rules that implement this
> > without too
> > much care for sandboxed applications, or overall security, or just
> > sudo.
> > 
> > A better approach is what we already have for evdev devices: give
> > the
> > application a file descriptor and revoke it when it may no longer
> > access
> > that device.
> 
> Who is going to use this "better" approach?  Is there support in
> libusb
> for it?  Who talks raw usbfs other than libusb these days?

Did you read the follow-up mail with the links to example code for the
hid revoke support?

> 
> > 
> > This patch is the USB equivalent to the EVIOCREVOKE ioctl, see
> > commit c7dc65737c9a607d3e6f8478659876074ad129b8 for full details.
> 
> c7dc65737c9a ("Input: evdev - add EVIOCREVOKE ioctl") is how I
> thought
> we were supposed to write out commits in changelogs these days :)
> 
> > 
> > Note that this variant needs to do a few things that the evdev
> > revoke
> > doesn't need to handle, particular:
> > - cancelling pending async transfers
> > - making sure to release claimed interfaces on revoke so they can
> > be
> >   opened by another process/user, as USB interfaces require being
> >   exclusively claimed to be used.
> 
> I love the idea of a real revoke() someday, but can't you just do the
> "unbind/bind" hack instead if you really want to do this?  Who wants
> to
> pass usbfs file descriptors around these days?

Again, please read the follow-up mail where I talk of the BPF support
patch that would allow revoking USB fds without relying on a service in
the middle to access devices (although that's eventually going to be
the way to do things to allow elevating access to devices).

Cheers

  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-25 14:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-25 13:23 [RFC v1] USB: core: add USBDEVFS_REVOKE ioctl Bastien Nocera
2022-04-25 13:28 ` Bastien Nocera
2022-04-25 13:49 ` Oliver Neukum
2022-04-25 14:25   ` Bastien Nocera
2022-04-25 14:45   ` Bastien Nocera
2022-04-25 14:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-04-25 14:28   ` Bastien Nocera [this message]
2022-04-25 15:00     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-04-25 15:17       ` Bastien Nocera
2022-04-25 15:45         ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-04-26  2:27           ` Peter Hutterer
2022-04-26  7:14             ` Oliver Neukum
2022-04-26  7:21               ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-04-26  8:46                 ` Oliver Neukum
2022-04-26 10:07                   ` Bastien Nocera
2022-04-26 10:30                     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-04-26 10:37                       ` Bastien Nocera
2022-04-26 11:10                         ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-04-28 10:28                         ` Oliver Neukum
2022-04-28 11:21                           ` Bastien Nocera
2022-04-26 10:07             ` Bastien Nocera
2022-04-26 10:07           ` Bastien Nocera
2022-04-25 16:14         ` Alan Stern
2022-04-25 17:09           ` Benjamin Tissoires

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=e73035d1bae5d0c355166fb46f0f5f2f07752b3c.camel@hadess.net \
    --to=hadess@hadess.net \
    --cc=benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peter.hutterer@who-t.net \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox