<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed"
title="RESOLVED FIXED - Allow another local user to run programs on a WAYLAND_DISPLAY"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84817#c11">Comment # 11</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed"
title="RESOLVED FIXED - Allow another local user to run programs on a WAYLAND_DISPLAY"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84817">bug 84817</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:daniel@fooishbar.org" title="Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>"> <span class="fn">Daniel Stone</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Paranoik from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=84817#c10">comment #10</a>)
<span class="quote">> What is the problem to let everyone access the desktop by default? Why is it
> blocked? What is this wayland sudo talk is all about? The modern desktop
> compositor should have been developed with MAC concept in mind. Apps must be
> isolated and it shouldn't be a security hole to grant programs run under
> different restricted user accounts to access desktop and interact with the
> user.</span >
As you say, building in MAC would make the protocol completely different and
require everyone to be aware. It would need either SELinux-style explicit
labeling, or constant prompts. Instead we chose to make the socket a security
boundary, which is still a valid choice.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>