linux-kernel - VT_PROCESS, VT_LOCKSWITCH capabilities

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46AFB62E.2080303@benkstein.net>
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:22:38 +0200
From:	Frank Benkstein <frank-lkml@...kstein.net>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: VT_PROCESS, VT_LOCKSWITCH capabilities

Hi,

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.

Please CC me on replies, I am not on the list.

Best regards
Frank Benkstein.
-
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/