Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:04:06 -0400 (EDT) From: BEAUPRE Antoine <beaupran@JSP.UMontreal.CA> To: David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com> Cc: dervish@ikhala.tcimet.net, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Using a screensavver under xdm? Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.96.980924160000.3504A-100000@derby.jsp.umontreal.ca> In-Reply-To: <199809231602.JAA05294@pau-amma.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I have a few precisions to add. I remarked in the xautolock man page the "noclose" switch which disables the normal xautolock behaviour, which is to lock the stderr stdout of the locker. After using this, I finally got the message from xlock: xlock, could not grab keyboard! (1) Al right. Now I know what's wrong. But I can't fix it!! Why do xlock want to lock the keyboard, even thought I specified the -nolock option??? I'm gonna make it!!! On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, David Wolfskill wrote: > >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 > +-----------------------------------+ | Free the world from businessmen | | Free yourself from your money | +-----------------------------------+ Free the web. Spidey visit: http://www.JSP.UMontreal.CA/~beaupran 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?Pine.SGI.3.96.980924160000.3504A-100000>