Hi, On 20 October 2014 15:19, Jussi Laako <jussi.la...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 17.10.2014 20:00, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > >> Could you please provide a little more explanation than that. What kind >> of nesting are you doing? >> > > We have one system compositor using DRM backend and then nested > compositors for each user using wayland backend. > > This is in order to share single GPU with multiple display outputs among > multiple users. Makes sense, although you can already enforce isolation with a single shared compositor ... > Also, why are you doing this through environment variables and not >> something explicit? For instance, the compositor can easily grab the >> socket and chmod it. It has the privileges and knows what socket it is. >> > > This is related to the other patch that allows modifying location of the > server/client socket location. I thought that the access control is best > being close to the place where socket is created. Otherwise it is hard to > follow what is going on if the related code is scattered across modules. Doing it through environment variables is just plain nasty though; I really don't like this patch. I'd much rather see an explicit call, or users creating the appropriate fd and then just passing it to the lib. Cheers, Daniel
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
