[PATCH libX11] xcb_io: Fix Xlib 32-bit request number issues

Tue Nov 4 05:24:58 PST 2014

Hi Christian,

thank you for having a look. The original patch is from Jonas Petersen. You
will find all necessary information in the links below:
   orginal:https://freedesktop.org/patch/16753/
   latest:  https://freedesktop.org/patch/33513/

I got involved just because I happen to have a critical application which
is not allowed to crash, let alone after less than 24 hrs:
http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2014-August/043661.html

other references:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71338
http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2013-October/038370.html
https://freedesktop.org/patch/15500/

best regards,
Jan

On 4 November 2014 13:55, Christian Linhart <chris at demorecorder.com> wrote:

>  Hi Jan,
>
> Can you please repost your patch together with a description of the
> problem and your approach to fix it.
>
> I was not subscribed to that list back when you have posted it, and so may
> some others, who may be able to move this thing forward. You may also post
> a link to the specific mails/threads in the mailinglist-archives if that'll
> help with understanding your patch.
>
> I'll look at that then.
>
> I have some other issues with sequence numbers, and I think we need to
> solve that on a design level.
> The essential thing is that the protocol transports only 16-bit sequence
> numbers, but server and client work with at least 32-bit, sometimes 64-bit
> sequence numbers. What I've seen so far in the code looks like heuristics
> which may fail in some cases. Maybe I am missing something. In any case, I
> want to see your problem analysis and your proposed fix before I propose
> something.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 11/04/14 13:14, Jan Smout wrote:
>
>
>  I already forked it for myself a couple of months ago. As long as I
> control the packages which get installed on the machines I have no real
> issue... except for an uncomfortable feeling that if things like this don't
> get fixed, what other dragons might be hiding deep down in the xlib library?
> Now, when somebody would want to run the application on their own install,
> that's where the shit hits the fan. I'll be forced to tell them to
> downgrade their xlib to 1.3.3 and file a complaint on this list :-)
>
>
> On 4 November 2014 10:49, Alexander E. Patrakov <patrakov at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  Just fork it. I am sure that such antisocial step is the only way
>> forward, because I also have a patch that was not looked at for too long,
>> and then rejected because it breaks keystone correction (which was broken
>> in a different way before the patch).
>>
>>
>> 04.11.2014 13:23, Jan Smout wrote:
>>
>>  and again... reminder...
>>
>> On 28 October 2014 12:51, Jan Smout <smout.jan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> reminder...
>>>
>>> On 21 October 2014 12:49, Jan Smout <smout.jan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Keith, we are approaching the one year anniversary of this bug
>>>> already. Maybe it is time to finish the patch and leave the issue behind?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  fyi, I have been running my application with the first version of
>>>> Jonas's patch for 65 days straight now without a glitch (it used to crash
>>>> in less than 20 hours).
>>>>
>>>>  I also intend to restart this long duration test once the final patch
>>>> will be released
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27 September 2014 05:23, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:40 AM, Jan Smout <smout.jan at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >> Keith Packard doesn't seem very responsive (as in 'completely
>>>>> ignoring the
>>>>> >> subject')
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Perhaps you should try Ccing him? (now Cc'd)
>>>>>
>>>>>  The problem is that reviewing this patch is *really hard*. The last
>>>>> time, I think I spent a solid couple of days thinking about this and
>>>>> making sure I'd caught all of the cases. I'm still not sure it's right,
>>>>> but I guess it's probably better than what we have?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> keith.packard at intel.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part.
>>
>>
>>   _______________________________________________xorg-devel at lists.x.org: X.Org development
>> Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
>> Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part.
>
>
> _______________________________________________xorg-devel at lists.x.org: X.Org development
> Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
> Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
>
>
>

-- 
Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20141104/8b7c7cf7/attachment.html>