https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=418760 User lnussel@novell.com added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=418760#c1 --- Comment #1 from Ludwig Nussel <lnussel@novell.com> 2008-08-20 09:18:46 MDT --- Created an attachment (id=234482) --> (https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=234482) patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=418760 User lnussel@novell.com added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=418760#c3 Ludwig Nussel <lnussel@novell.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |NEW Info Provider|lnussel@novell.com | --- Comment #3 from Ludwig Nussel <lnussel@novell.com> 2008-08-21 23:59:31 MDT --- <allow_inactive>no</allow_inactive> is nonsense. Once you have an fd open you can still access the device even if permissions are changed. Even if the revoke() system call was implemented it would result in appliations getting killed or malfunctioning just because you switch the console. Applications would need to be aware of the console switch and give up voluntarily. Once that's implemented everywhere we could enforce it. Until then allow_inactive=no doesn't make sense. However my current plan is to have a package that implements vendor specific overrides for all policies anyways so it wouldn't matter what the upstream package contains. So feel free to enter whatever is necessary for consistency. Have a look at the cdrom policy though. The file wasn't consistent before either :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.