> Wait, what's wrong with the existing functionality? Userspace programms for screensavers can potentially be bypassed - if my scrennsaver dies, for example by segfault, my screen is unlocked - Redirection is only possible in Kernel, because a vt switch can only be prevented there Also it would make the implementation of a Secure-Acess-Key possible (could also redirect to VT12)
>> It should behave like: >> If user A owns e.g. vt2, A is able to lock vt2 and unlock it again. >> This is realized by a userspace programm that calls ioctl, which the >> above >> mentioned added cases VT_LOCK and VT_UNLOCK. >> Another user(that is not root) wouldn't be allowed to un-/lock vt2. >> If anybody wants to change to a looked VT he gets redirected to vt12. >> At vt12 a userspace programm (to unlock a VT) would run and ask for >> loginname and password, if it is the password from the user that owns >> the >> locked terminal or from root. >> The VT gets unlocked and the user gets directed to his terminal. > > Why would you want to put all of that into the kernel? We don't want to put all of that in the kernel, the above describes only the interaction with a userspace programm. For the kernel it would only mean that if a vt is locked it wouldn't allow to switch to this vt and instead switch to VT12. Regards, Simone Weiss -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/