On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Which doesn't take very long to arrange. Relying on pids is definitely a
> security problem we don't want to make worse than it already is.
The thing is, the current code is _worse_.
MUCH worse.
And it's worse exactly because it does things really wrong. The suggested
patch then just _continues_ to do things really wrong, and then tries to
paper over the bugs.
Which is why I refuse to apply it. Use a pid and do it right.
If the code cannot be made to use fasync itself, then it can at least be
made to do the same _checks_ that fasync does (easy enough: just save away
uid/euid, and do the same signal checks by hand). Until such a time than
the driver writer sees the light.
Linus
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
