lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: VT_PROCESS, VT_LOCKSWITCH capabilities
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:22:38 +0200 Frank Benkstein <frank-lkml@benkstein.net> wrote:

> I wonder why there are different permissions needed for VT_PROCESS
> (access to the current virtual console) and VT_LOCKSWITCH
> (CAP_SYS_TTY_CONFIG).
>
> The first one lets the calling process decide if console switching is
> allowed, the second one simply disables it. If a program wants to
> forbid console switching the only technical difference I can see is that
> switching is automatically reenabled when the program exits when using
> VT_PROCESS. When using VT_LOCKSWITCH it must be manually reenabled.
> When the program uses the first method and disables terminal signals and
> SysRQ is disabled, too, I see no practical difference between the two.

It'd take some kernel archaeology to work out how things got the way they
are.

Perhaps the issue with VT_LOCKSWITCH is that its effects will persist after
the user has logged out? So user A is effectively altering user B's
console, hence suitable capabilities are needed?

Is the current code actually causing any observable problem?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-01 06:53    [W:0.073 / U:28.596 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site