Message-ID:

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

devel / comp.unix.shell / (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)

(suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)

<t5ggf0$um6$1@dont-email.me>

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=5322&group=comp.unix.shell#5322

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ottavio2...@yahoo.com (Ottavio Caruso)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 15:16:00 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <t5ggf0$um6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 14:16:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="76c652d1914bad47f6f67122b667f559";
logging-data="31430"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18pzt3sQ1JRejsppS7d/fWHQT4lnHA8IF8="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.0.3
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H2+3e0a0sB5sW+NBe42HHWKLmfk=
X-No-Archive: yes
Content-Language: en-GB

by: Ottavio Caruso - Wed, 11 May 2022 14:16 UTC

Hi,

Not sure if this just a command invocation problem or there are other
issues at hand (say, power management, etc) but... I have a script that
binds to 'CTRL + SHIFT + S':

$ cat opt/bin/lock-suspend
#!/bin/sh
systemctl suspend && mate-screensaver-command -l

This one seems to work, however I would have thought that the logical
sequence would be:

mate-screensaver-command -l && systemctl suspend

that is, a) lock screen; b) suspend; c) resume with lock screen on.

Instead, if I use the latter syntax, upon resuming, there is a 10 second
delay before locking the screen, which is not ideal for obvious privacy
reasons.

Any input on that?

--
Ottavio Caruso

Re: (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)

<t7vvor$2d2i$1@nyheter.lysator.liu.se>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=5347&group=comp.unix.shell#5347

copy link Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!nyheter.lysator.liu.se!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: kem...@lysator.liu.se (Andreas Kempe)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:41:47 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Lysator ACS
Message-ID: <t7vvor$2d2i$1@nyheter.lysator.liu.se>
References: <t5ggf0$um6$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:41:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nyheter.lysator.liu.se; posting-account="kempe";
logging-data="78930"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster@lysator.liu.se"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (FreeBSD)

by: Andreas Kempe - Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:41 UTC

Den 2022-05-11 skrev Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com>:
> Hi,
>

Hello,

> Not sure if this just a command invocation problem or there are other
> issues at hand (say, power management, etc) but... I have a script that
> binds to 'CTRL + SHIFT + S':
>
>
> $ cat opt/bin/lock-suspend
> #!/bin/sh
> systemctl suspend && mate-screensaver-command -l
>
>
> This one seems to work, however I would have thought that the logical
> sequence would be:
>

I have to agree with you that the sequence of first locking and then
suspending seems the reasonable one so you have me intrigued.

> mate-screensaver-command -l && systemctl suspend
>
> that is, a) lock screen; b) suspend; c) resume with lock screen on.
>
> Instead, if I use the latter syntax, upon resuming, there is a 10 second
> delay before locking the screen, which is not ideal for obvious privacy
> reasons.
>
> Any input on that?
>

A quick glance at the source code shows that mate-screensaver can be
built with systemd support. It then listens for the PrepareForSleep
signal sent by systemd and does a few things. It appears that it could
be configured to lock the screen automatically on suspend. If I were
to guess, the signal sent by systemctl suspend conflicts with your
mate-screensave-command -l call in some way.

To figure out what's going on, I would suggest enabling debug logging
for mate-screensaver and/or using dbus-monitor to see what messages it
sends and receives.

Re: (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)

<t81pn1$r2n$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=5348&group=comp.unix.shell#5348

copy link Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ottavio2...@yahoo.com (Ottavio Caruso)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 11:10:41 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <t81pn1$r2n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t5ggf0$um6$1@dont-email.me>
<t7vvor$2d2i$1@nyheter.lysator.liu.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 10:10:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f3159a483c016ddf838945fd7e63d874";
logging-data="27735"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+F3CNPe8ymg/qFNFgUcJSFXtm/j9N7HME="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.0.3
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DW0WQpHRrpprZn8RWhXY2MXH3g0=
X-No-Archive: yes
In-Reply-To: <t7vvor$2d2i$1@nyheter.lysator.liu.se>
Content-Language: en-GB

by: Ottavio Caruso - Sat, 11 Jun 2022 10:10 UTC

On 10/06/2022 18:41, Andreas Kempe wrote:
> Den 2022-05-11 skrev Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>
> Hello,
>
>> Not sure if this just a command invocation problem or there are other
>> issues at hand (say, power management, etc) but... I have a script that
>> binds to 'CTRL + SHIFT + S':
>>
>>
>> $ cat opt/bin/lock-suspend
>> #!/bin/sh
>> systemctl suspend && mate-screensaver-command -l
>>
>>
>> This one seems to work, however I would have thought that the logical
>> sequence would be:
>>
>
> I have to agree with you that the sequence of first locking and then
> suspending seems the reasonable one so you have me intrigued.
>
>> mate-screensaver-command -l && systemctl suspend
>>
>> that is, a) lock screen; b) suspend; c) resume with lock screen on.
>>
>> Instead, if I use the latter syntax, upon resuming, there is a 10 second
>> delay before locking the screen, which is not ideal for obvious privacy
>> reasons.
>>
>> Any input on that?
>>
>
> A quick glance at the source code shows that mate-screensaver can be
> built with systemd support. It then listens for the PrepareForSleep
> signal sent by systemd and does a few things. It appears that it could
> be configured to lock the screen automatically on suspend. If I were
> to guess, the signal sent by systemctl suspend conflicts with your
> mate-screensave-command -l call in some way.
>
> To figure out what's going on, I would suggest enabling debug logging
> for mate-screensaver and/or using dbus-monitor to see what messages it
> sends and receives.
>

In any case, it looks mate-* on Debian Bullseye is quite old and
bug-ridden. I have added the testing repos and upgraded mate-* (possibly
fixing something and breaking even more) and we'll take it from there.

--
Ottavio Caruso

Subject	Author
(suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)	Ottavio Caruso
Re: (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)	Andreas Kempe
Re: (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)	Ottavio Caruso