Hi
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, wrote:
> Our approch would be more universal, it wouldn't only work when wayland is
> used, but as well on servers and systems that are not going to use
> wayland.
This has nothing to do with Wayland. I just said doing it like Wayland
compositors do it. That
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:02 PM, wrote:
>> hello
>>
>>> By moving these calls into the kernel, you don't make them necessarily
>>> fail-safe. This can all be implemented in user-space. By switching to
>>> a dedicated VT (say, VT12) and running VT_SETMODE+VT_PROCESS, you lock
>>> the mach
Hi
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:02 PM, wrote:
> hello
>
>> By moving these calls into the kernel, you don't make them necessarily
>> fail-safe. This can all be implemented in user-space. By switching to
>> a dedicated VT (say, VT12) and running VT_SETMODE+VT_PROCESS, you lock
>> the machine. You ca
hello
> By moving these calls into the kernel, you don't make them necessarily
> fail-safe. This can all be implemented in user-space. By switching to
> a dedicated VT (say, VT12) and running VT_SETMODE+VT_PROCESS, you lock
> the machine. You can now implement your screensaver. If you run a
> spaw
Hi
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:29 AM, wrote:
>
>> 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
> 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
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:03:03PM +0100, helene.gsaen...@studium.fau.de wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> We want to add a functionality to the kernel that allows to lock and unlock
> virtual terminals to maybe one day replace X11 screensavers and console
> lockers by a more secure kernel mechanism.
Wait,
Hello,
We want to add a functionality to the kernel that allows to lock and unlock
virtual terminals to maybe one day replace X11 screensavers and console
lockers by a more secure kernel mechanism.
It should behave like:
If user A owns e.g. vt2, A is able to lock vt2 and unlock it again.
This is
8 matches
Mail list logo
