[Xorg] The big multiconsole nasty
keithp at keithp.com
Wed Jul 7 08:43:37 PDT 2004
Around 14 o'clock on Jul 7, Egbert Eich wrote:
> For HW access this is certainly true, but it also deosn't make the kernel
> a better choice than user land.
Yes, that's exactly right. We need to treat any such code with the same
care one would treat the kernel itself, it's all essentially equivalent.
> On the other hand a sloppy written user land code will probably just
> segfault while similar flaws in a kernel module may mess up your entire
The contrarary is equally true; kernel mistakes often result in benign
(from the system perspective) oopses while user-level mistakes can easily
lock up the PCI bus. Touching device registers is like that; there's no
magic bullet here.
> From a security point of view it is certainly the correct apporach to
> separate the scary parts from the rest of the Xserver.
I think this should be our goal -- address space separation of the 'scary'
parts of the X server and a common sharable API to access them.
Security and stability are the goals here; a separate device configuration
mechanism should allow:
1) Automatic recovery from X server crashes
2) 'printk' support while X is running
3) Multi-seat X support
4) Support for other graphics systems (GL-solo in particular)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the xorg