--- Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mer, 2004-05-19 at 01:35, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > Why does VT switch have to be in the kernel? I can have multiple xterms
> logged
> > in as different users without kernel support. Why can't VT switching be
> > implemented as if I was switching between multiple fullscreen xterms? I
> guess I
> > don't see why there is a difference between multiple xterms and VT's. I can
> use
> > su to set the xterm to any account.
>
> You trust the X server. Thats already problematic with SELinux and
> compartmentalisation. For some things you need multiple X-servers for
> this reason.
If we are going to build a new user space console, let's work with the SELinux
people from the beginning to make it trustworthy. User space console could look
just like the current VT system and run each session full screen. That stops the
scraping the screen attack.
xserver draws each app into it's own pbuffer. The individual apps don't have
access to the main framebuffer. A properly designed xserver should be free from
the screen scraping attack too. The DRM module will have to make sure you can't
read buffers that don't belong to you.
I don't want to go the model of running multiple X servers on the same hardware
again. That path causes all of the problems with multitasking the device drivers
on to the same piece of hardware.
=====
Jon Smirl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: SourceForge.net Broadband
Sign-up now for SourceForge Broadband and get the fastest
6.0/768 connection for only $19.95/mo for the first 3 months!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2562&alloc_id=6184&op=click
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
