[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: pulseaudio causing crashing of applications



Alan Cox wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 05:52:21PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
But why not just block any other access? A tape drive wouldn't work

Because the device changes ownership

Traditional unix behavior is that open file descriptors stay open and working even if access permissions change.

well with 2 writers but unix systems can usually prevent that without breaking a running session because someone else logs in nearby.

Different thing altogether.

If a previos session could snoop your keystrokes, watch your desktop and
borrow your bank card details you would be suprised and I suspect cross. Audio
and video snooping via sound card/web camera is no different.

If something needs exclusive access, it should arrange for exclusive access and just not work until it can get it (i.e. politely wait its turn instead of rudely breaking a working process). I can see where this might make sense on the VT keyboard since that device is necessarily shared during the procedure. But it doesn't make any more sense to interrupt a running phone or music player session because someone else is temporarily using a certain keybord than it would to break a running tape backup for the same circumstance. Or at least this should be left as an easily chosen local policy.

With controls based on ownership, can't root still do the snooping operations you are concerned about anyway? Fedora is probably mostly used on machines with only a few users, so chances are that the owner of the first session being interrupted has root access anyway and could bypass the access restrictions the switch tries to impose. Wouldn't it be better to kernel locking or some mechanism that can really ensure exclusive access for situations like a phone session?

--
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]