[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANq1E4RYXHQzcxrEZnLBYFN3NvUNHNa+19G96H=cHyX-SeFetw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:29:55 +0100
From: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
To: simone.weiss@....de
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
helene.gsaenger@...dium.fau.de, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, mark.d.rustad@...el.com,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...cs.fau.de
Subject: Re: questions to planned lock-functionality for vts
Hi
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:29 AM, <simone.weiss@....de> wrote:
>
>> Wait, what's wrong with the existing functionality?
>
> Userspace programms for screensavers can potentially be bypassed
> - if my scrennsaver dies, for example by segfault, my screen is unlocked
> - Redirection is only possible in Kernel, because a vt switch can only
> be prevented there
> Also it would make the implementation of a Secure-Acess-Key possible
> (could also redirect to VT12)
By moving these calls into the kernel, you don't make them necessarily
fail-safe. This can all be implemented in user-space. By switching to
a dedicated VT (say, VT12) and running VT_SETMODE+VT_PROCESS, you lock
the machine. You can now implement your screensaver. If you run a
spawner-process, you're even safe if your screensaver crashes.
Thanks
David
--
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