[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070731214931.8d05f367.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
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