Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:02:03 -0700 (PDT) From: David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com> To: beaupran@JSP.UMontreal.CA, dervish@ikhala.tcimet.net Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Using a screensavver under xdm? Message-ID: <199809231602.JAA05294@pau-amma.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.3.96.980922184258.26693B-100000@derby.jsp.umontreal.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:47:10 -0400 (EDT) >From: BEAUPRE Antoine <beaupran@JSP.UMontreal.CA> >more Xsetup_0: >#!/bin/sh ># $XConsortium: Xsetup_0,v 1.3 93/09/28 14:30:31 gildea Exp $ >#xconsole -geometry 480x130-0-0 -daemon -notify -verbose -fn fixed >-exitOnFail >#xclock -digital -update 1 & >xhost +localhost >/usr/X11R6/bin/xautolock -resetsaver -time 1 -locker 'xlock -nolock' & >/usr/X11R6/bin/xclock -update 1 -geometry -0-0 & >And still, after one minute, the screen goes blank for a second, and goes >back to the prompt without running the screensaver. >Any one else wanna try? :) As I pointed out (once you mentioned that you're wanting to do this without someone being logged in), what you're trying to do is at cross-purposes to the function of xlock. Hmmm... as a way to determine precisely why xlock is terminating, you might try invoking it via ktrace.... I suspect that your best bet is to take the xlock sources and either make a new program that does what you want, or figure out a way to hack in an option to do that. Once you've done that, getting xautolock to invoke the program in question should be straightforward. Of course, this means that you will need to rather carefully define what you want the behavior to be in the environment in question. >On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, bush doctor wrote: >> you may need to change xautolock to be SUID root. Please don't do that unless you understand what you're doing and what its effects may be. In particular: * xautolock shouldn't need to run setuid root: its job is to pay attention to keyboard/mouse/timer events, and if the conditions seem right, fork a child process (generally, xlock). xlock requires effective uid root, because it need to check for a (valid) password. * Writing setuid root programs properly is non-trivial. Assuming that some program that has no need to be run setuid root has had the same level of design review appropriate to a setuid root program is asking for trouble. david -- David Wolfskill UNIX System Administrator dhw@whistle.com voice: (650) 577-7158 pager: (650) 371-4621 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809231602.JAA05294>