<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi David,</div><div><br></div>I'm currently using this patch with a dual-seat system consisting of a primary Intel onboard video chip and a secondary Silicon Motion SM501 graphics card with no DRM/KMS drivers available (much like a NVIDIA card with proprietary drivers). At the moment, I've observed no problems at all, but more tests will be really welcome.<div>
<div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">CANTATE DOMINO CANTICUM NOVUM<div>QUIA MIRABILIA FECIT</div><div><br></div><div>Laércio</div></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/11/11 David Herrmann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dh.herrmann@gmail.com" target="_blank">dh.herrmann@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Laércio de Sousa <<a href="mailto:lbsousajr@gmail.com">lbsousajr@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> This is my first atempt to block VT access to non-seat0 X servers.<br>
><br>
> If -seat option is passed with a value different from seat0,<br>
> X server won't call xf86OpenConsole().<br>
><br>
> This is needed to avoid any race condition between seat0 and<br>
> non-seat0 X servers. If a non-seat0 X server opens a given VT<br>
> before a seat0 one which expects to open the same VT, one can<br>
> get an inactive systemd-logind graphical session for seat0.<br>
><br>
> This patch was first tested in a multiseat setup with multiple<br>
> video cards and works quite well.<br>
><br>
> I suppose it can also make things like DontVTSwitch and -sharevts<br>
> meaningless for non-seat0 seats, so it may fix bug #69477, too.<br>
><br>
> Fixes: <a href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71258" target="_blank">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71258</a><br>
> <a href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69477" target="_blank">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69477</a> (maybe)<br>
><br>
> See also: <a href="http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2013-October/038391.html" target="_blank">http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2013-October/038391.html</a><br>
> <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018196" target="_blank">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018196</a><br>
> ---<br>
> hw/xfree86/common/xf86Init.c | 2 +-<br>
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)<br>
><br>
> diff --git a/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Init.c b/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Init.c<br>
> index 91ec4c8..a678f4d 100644<br>
> --- a/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Init.c<br>
> +++ b/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Init.c<br>
> @@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ InitOutput(ScreenInfo * pScreenInfo, int argc, char **argv)<br>
> want_hw_access = TRUE;<br>
><br>
> if (!(flags & HW_SKIP_CONSOLE))<br>
> - xorgHWOpenConsole = TRUE;<br>
> + xorgHWOpenConsole = !ServerIsNotSeat0();<br>
<br>
</div></div>Did you test that? I don' know whether there are any implications if<br>
we don't open the VT. The idea sounds good, though. I'd like to see<br>
that applied upstream. However, maybe someone can comment why<br>
"sharedvt" was introduced in the first place?<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
David<br>
<br>
> }<br>
><br>
> if (xorgHWOpenConsole)<br>
<span class=""><font color="#888888">> --<br>
> 1.8.1.4<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> <a href="mailto:xorg-devel@lists.x.org">xorg-devel@lists.x.org</a>: X.Org development<br>
> Archives: <a href="http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel</a><br>
> Info: <a href="http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>