linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] System Inactivity Monitor v1.0

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070124140105.GD7365@ucw.cz>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:01:06 +0000
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Scott Preece <sepreece@...il.com>
Cc:	Alessandro Di Marco <dmr@....it>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	vojtech@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] System Inactivity Monitor v1.0

Hi!
> >
> >>    But I still believe it can be out.
> >>
> >> Do you believe it could be a user-space daemon or 
> >what?
> >
> >Yes, what prevents userspace daemon watching 
> >/dev/input/event* to
> >provide this functionality?
> >                                                                        Pavel
> ---
> 
> One possible argument is to allow integrating 
> "input-like" user events
> with other kinds of system-level events that you might 
> want to have
> treated like user activity. For instance, our definition 
> of user
> activity includes: button presses, opening-closing the 
> cover (on a
> phone), and plugging in or removing memory cards, 
> accessories, or
> cables. We actually use a mix of kernel and user-space 
> monitoring,

Well... input already has 'pseudokey' for lid, and yes, you
probably can monitor cover, memory cards and cables from userspace,
already... as you do. Cover, and maybe even cards/cables could be
integrated with input infrastructure, too.

(Still waiting for you to start selling those cool phones in czech
republic :-).

> A user-space monitor also has more opportunity for races 
> - for
> instance, deciding that the inactivity timeout has 
> occurred between
> the time that the user does something and the time that 
> the kernel
> gets a notification up to user space.

Same races are inside kernel, too.

> My own hot button is making sure that the definition of 
> what
> constitutes user activity is managed in exactly one 
> place, whether in
> the kernel or not. My naive model would be to put the 
> response at user
> level, but to provide a single point of definition in 
> the kernel (say,
> /dev/useractivity or the equivalent) that the user-level 
> daemon could
> listen to.

Actually, I believe right solution is to provide one, unified,
monitoring daemon, using whatever interfaces are available. (+ add
missing functionality to the kernel, if neccessary).

							Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/