linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 34/36] tty: Add a new VT mode which is like VT_PROCESS but doesn't require a VT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100316001837.GB32558@kroah.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:18:37 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Ari Entlich <atrigent@....neu.edu>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/36] tty: Add a new VT mode which is like VT_PROCESS
 but doesn't require a VT_RELDISP ioctl call

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 07:53:10PM -0400, Ari Entlich wrote:
> ----- "Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> > So, are you happy with this in Linus's tree, or do you want it
> > reverted?
> 
> The problems with this patch include:
> 1. There's at least one subtlety I overlooked - switching between X servers
>    (i.e. from one X VT to another) still requires the cooperation of both
>    X servers. I was assuming that KMS eliminated this.
> 2. It hasn't been tested at all (no X server patch exists which uses the
>    new mode).
> 
> So yes, I think it would be wise to revert it. I'll resubmit the patch (in
> a changed form or otherwise) when I've resolved these issues.
> 
> I apologize again for being late in telling you this stuff.

No problem, I'll go queue up the revert.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/