[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <efd8dbe1963af0bb849841f4fd5e718b.squirrel@faumail.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:02:48 +0100
From: simone.weiss@....de
To: "David Herrmann" <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
Cc: simone.weiss@....de, "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
hello
> 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.
Yes but this would lock the whole machine. Our plan is to make it posible
to lock a specific set of VTs - owned by the user who wants to lock.
e.g if user A locked all his VTs user B would still be able to switch to
his VTs.
Thanks
Simone Weiss
--
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