-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi,
Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There are other reasons to use the framebuffer, like security: if you > have untrusted users, you only need to audit the small bit of code in > the fb, then you can run X non-suid, instead of counting on all of X > to be free of security holes. Granted. That's quite an important issue. Although, AIUI, the Xserver is now run from a wrapper which drops root privileges anyway does it not? And if you're running from a Display Manager, it will be run as root anyway, unless it explicitly drops it's privileges? > Also, a correction: X on framebuffer *is* accelerated for many > chipsets, primarily for those arches which use framebuffers > exclusively, like PPC (e.g. there's atyfb and clgenfb acceleration > support in X; Debian uses fb exclusively though there's also Xpmac). Ah, yes. I should have qualified that with 'In terms of the x86 ...'. ISTR Linus has specifically stated that acceleration code will never make it into the kernel, as that's a user-space issue. I don't know however if the current architecture allows acceleration to be handled in user mode[1]. You're right. It's heading in the right direction. What's the architecture of XFree86 4.0 in terms of security? I've heard good things about the performance, especially for DRI-related work. [1] I don't know how it could be achieved in user-mode at all, come to think of it - any benefit you reaped from increased video acceleration would be countered by the dramatic increase in context switches. AIUI. - -- Graeme. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Life's not fair," I reply. "But the root password helps." - BOFH -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE5IAiQPjGH3lNt65URAq52AKCqQwtrAsz0yA4btvsh01F/dRFLtgCfWoTo r0GwqP61agyNLGUE1LcG8YU= =mtLq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
