Ian Romanick writes:
>
> I looked into the code, and I now understand what's going on. Alexis
> made a good catch of a very subtle bug! The main problem that I had was
> that it wasn't 100% clear at first glance how bufSize / buf / pc were
> used. Some form of "- 8" should be applied to bufSize. I have attached
> the patch that I plan to apply to the DRI tree. I suspect that it has
> only cosmetic and / or commentary differences from your patch.
>
> Some things have moved around in the DRI tree, so this patch probably
> won't apply to the XFree86 tree.
We can wait until the DRI stuff is merged back again.
The patch indeed is very similar to what has been proposed in #439.
I've also looked at the GLX code. At line 671 in glxext.c
there is :
maxSize = ctx->bufSize - sizeof(xGLXRenderLargeReq);
Wouldn't we have to add sz_xGLXRenderReq there again?
I suppose if the size is to small it is saver as if it is too big.
Would you mind taking bug #439 and close it when the code is
scheduled for merger with XFree86?
Thanks a lot!
Egbert.
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
