Review Request 122509: [screenlocker] Perform KAuthorized check for org.freedesktop.ScreenSaver.Lock

[Martin Gräßlin]

> On Feb. 10, 2015, 12:35 p.m., David Edmundson wrote:
> > If an admin as root says to lock the screen via logind, should it not lock regarless?
> > 
> > (I don't know the right answer, just raising a question)

> If an admin as root says to lock the screen via logind, should it not lock regarless?

I'd say yes and that is still the case (logind is weired in at a different place).


- Martin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/122509/#review75768
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 10, 2015, 11:52 a.m., Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/122509/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 10, 2015, 11:52 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Plasma.
> 
> 
> Repository: plasma-workspace
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The lock screen has an authorized action "lock_screen" which is honored
> for the global shortcut. The authorized action might disallow the user
> to lock the screen, so this should also be honored for other ways the
> user might lock the screen, e.g. through the DBus interface.
> 
> Idle timeout is not verified through the KAuthorized action as this can
> be restricted seperately.
> 
> CCBUG: 174100
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   ksmserver/screenlocker/interface.cpp 3ee3f01224dc902840a485367ca1362b9b0fba8a 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/122509/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Martin Gräßlin
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20150210/d6ab0205/attachment.html>