KPasswordEdit patch (was Re: new widgets...)

Neil Stevens neil at
Fri Sep 27 09:50:40 BST 2002

Hash: SHA1

On Friday September 27, 2002 01:42, David Faure wrote:
> On Friday 27 September 2002 10:17, Neil Stevens wrote:
> > On Friday September 27, 2002 01:05, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > > It is not more secure at all because the mlock()/munlock() calls
> > > will fail if the processes is not running with root privileges.
> > > Citing Waldo: Sorry, security is not optional :)
> >
> > Well, it's free software.  Anyone who wants it optional is going to
> > make it optional.  The only question is, are people going to be able
> > to have flexible security models within KDE, or will they have to fork
> > KDE to do so?
> Oh come on. It makes no sense to include code that only works if you
> run a KDE application as root - we've always discouraged doing so
> (to the point that suidroot kde apps are forbidden by kapplication
> IIRC).

Grr.. that's not what I meant to convey.  I agree the mlock is worthless.  
I think the const char * is just as worthless.

I'm talking about making optional the use of a clunky, inconvenient const 
char *, when a QString is no less safe for nearly all of KDE's users.
- -- 
Neil Stevens - neil at
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding
because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they
have not a single political argument left." - Margaret Thatcher
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list