| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:49:31 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Frank Benkstein <frank-lkml@...kstein.net> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: VT_PROCESS, VT_LOCKSWITCH capabilities On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:22:38 +0200 Frank Benkstein <frank-lkml@...kstein.net> wrote: > I wonder why there are different permissions needed for VT_PROCESS > (access to the current virtual console) and VT_LOCKSWITCH > (CAP_SYS_TTY_CONFIG). > > The first one lets the calling process decide if console switching is > allowed, the second one simply disables it. If a program wants to > forbid console switching the only technical difference I can see is that > switching is automatically reenabled when the program exits when using > VT_PROCESS. When using VT_LOCKSWITCH it must be manually reenabled. > When the program uses the first method and disables terminal signals and > SysRQ is disabled, too, I see no practical difference between the two. It'd take some kernel archaeology to work out how things got the way they are. Perhaps the issue with VT_LOCKSWITCH is that its effects will persist after the user has logged out? So user A is effectively altering user B's console, hence suitable capabilities are needed? Is the current code actually causing any observable problem? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists