linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vt: Add enable module parameter

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

Message-ID: <5707632d-3fd8-4a5e-9273-dd7d48d5b438@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 23:59:41 +0100
From: Jocelyn Falempe <jfalempe@...hat.com>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
 Calixte Pernot <calixte.pernot@...noble-inp.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vt: Add enable module parameter

On 26/01/2026 18:24, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2026, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 02:05:36PM +0100, Jocelyn Falempe wrote:
>>> I think that one of the reason, is that if you switch off VT, of course some
>>> users will complain, as it has a lot of implications.
>>
>> Again, that's a distro's policy decision to make, don't force the kernel
>> to support a wishy-washy distro's decision :)
> 
> As a daily VT user for my primary Linux interface due to accessibility
> needs, I'm baffled by the idea of distributions removing this support.
> 
> Of course this has lots of implications. For many users with
> disabilities, VT is not optional - it's the only _fully_ usable
> interface.
> 
> Consider this my official objection. Just don't do that.

That patch is clearly for people like you, that will need more time to 
adapt their tools and workflow to a VT-less system.
It's also less practical to develop alternative, if you need to rebuild 
your kernel to disable VT.
Regarding accessibility, I don't see any technical reason why a VT-less 
system would be less efficient that what is currently available with VT.

-- 

Jocelyn

> 
> 
> Nicolas
>