Re: questions to planned lock-functionality for vts

[simone . weiss]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/