Re: questions to planned lock-functionality for vts

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:03:03PM +0100, helene.gsaenger@studium.fau.de wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 
> We want to add a functionality to the kernel that allows to lock and unlock
> virtual terminals to maybe one day replace X11 screensavers and console
> lockers by a more secure kernel mechanism.

Wait, what's wrong with the existing functionality?

> It should behave like:
> If user A owns e.g. vt2, A is able to lock vt2 and unlock it again.
> This is realized by a userspace programm that calls ioctl, which the above
> mentioned added cases VT_LOCK and VT_UNLOCK.
> Another user(that is not root) wouldn't be allowed to un-/lock vt2.
> If anybody wants to change to a looked VT he gets redirected to vt12.
> At vt12 a userspace programm (to unlock a VT) would run and ask for
> loginname and password, if it is the password from the user that owns the
> locked terminal or from root.
> The VT gets unlocked and the user gets directed to his terminal.

Why would you want to put all of that into the kernel?

thanks,

greg k-h