From owner-freebsd-bugs Tue Dec 28 7:40: 3 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0662F14DE7 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 07:40:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id HAA97373; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 07:40:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 07:40:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199912281540.HAA97373@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Sheldon Hearn Subject: Re: bin/15663: patch for lock (1) adding capability to lock all ttys Reply-To: Sheldon Hearn Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR bin/15663; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Sheldon Hearn To: acid@stu.cn.ua Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bin/15663: patch for lock (1) adding capability to lock all ttys Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:40:39 +0200 On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 12:59:56 +0200, acid@stu.cn.ua wrote: > .Bl -tag -width Fl > + .It Fl a > + Lock all ttys. To use this feature, you must be root or > + .Nm lock > + must be installed setuid to root. What I'd _really_ like to see as the lock_all feature with slightly different (and more useful) semantics: -a Lock all terminals for which the user has appropriate permissions. For the superuser, this means all terminals. I see no reason to allow a single user to lock all the terminals (including psuedo-terminals, no?) but I _do_ see a reason to allow a single user to lock all the terminals which that user owns. Wotcha think? Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message