Are we ready for X server 1.9?

[Adam Jackson]

On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 17:08 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:

> As for the midispcur bugs, I'd like to suggest that damage records lose
> their ability to hold private storage; it's not currently used
> anywhere. That's an ABI change though, so not suitable for 1.9 (or 1.9.1).

In the absence of XACE, Damages seem like Regions; I can't imagine
anything interesting a DDX subsystem would want to attach to a Damage.

As a security question it's a little weirder.  The thing you could do
there is selectively control which bits of damage are reported to the
listening client.  I'm not sure that's a useful thing to constrain?
Maybe you want a more-secure app to be able to render over less-secure
apps without them knowing, but that's just a race you're going to lose
the next time the less-secure app redraws.  Seems like what you really
want there is preventing rendering, not preventing knowing about
rendering; in which case all the information you need about whether to
allow a Damage to be created is there up-front and doesn't need a
devprivate.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20100823/4bc7efd5/attachment.pgp>