On Wed, 15 May 2024 07:14:09 -0000 (UTC),
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote in <v21nc1$o322$
1@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:52:49 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 10:31:50 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield wrote:
The socket is usually called /tmp/.X11-unix/Xn for display n.
The socket *has* to be called X«n», and be located in /tmp/.X11-unix/.
In one post you're claiming X doesn't use unix sockets, now you're an
expert on what the permissions should be.
Which is a world-writable directory. You see the problem?
Its not a problem , its part of the design.
The Wayland socket goes in $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR, which is a variable under
the control of the user. It usually points to /run/user/«userid». Which >>belongs to that specific user.
Very useful if a process running under another user id wants to connect.
Lawrence doesn't seem to understand ~/.Xauthority ...
ssh does though -- if you forward an X connection through ssh,
it will manage the necessary .Xauthority entries with xauth(1).
This completely invalidates the "X over ssh is insecure" argument.
export DISPLAY=:0.0 # This uses a Unix socket.
Not even root can run X clients on the display server, if it
doesn't have the necessary .Xauthority entry. Protip:
# ll /root/.Xauthority
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 23 Oct 12 2023 /root/.Xauthority -> /home/ xxx/.Xauthority
I can't see using Wayland until remote connection forwarding is
handled. If there is something that gets access to Wayland via
a Unix socket, then I could see ssh being changed to add Wayland
connection forwarding.
--
-v
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)