From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753733AbbCWNDA (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:03:00 -0400 Received: from mx-rz-2.rrze.uni-erlangen.de ([131.188.11.21]:40711 "EHLO mx-rz-2.rrze.uni-erlangen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753709AbbCWNCv (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:02:51 -0400 X-RRZE-Submit-IP: 131.188.11.53 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <5084791d6ec7b09c5f3047a376cc8677.squirrel@faumail.uni-erlangen.de> <20150322222337.GA28785@kroah.com> <1407ab9cdf5fc07ef39080926b3963bb.squirrel@faumail.uni-erlangen.de> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:02:48 +0100 Subject: Re: questions to planned lock-functionality for vts From: simone.weiss@fau.de To: "David Herrmann" Cc: simone.weiss@fau.de, "Greg KH" , helene.gsaenger@studium.fau.de, "Jiri Slaby" , "Daniel Vetter" , "Peter Hurley" , "Takashi Iwai" , mark.d.rustad@intel.com, "Joe Perches" , "linux-kernel" , linux-kernel@i4.cs.fau.de User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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