On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 17:08 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > As for the midispcur bugs, I'd like to suggest that damage records lose > their ability to hold private storage; it's not currently used > anywhere. That's an ABI change though, so not suitable for 1.9 (or 1.9.1).
In the absence of XACE, Damages seem like Regions; I can't imagine anything interesting a DDX subsystem would want to attach to a Damage. As a security question it's a little weirder. The thing you could do there is selectively control which bits of damage are reported to the listening client. I'm not sure that's a useful thing to constrain? Maybe you want a more-secure app to be able to render over less-secure apps without them knowing, but that's just a race you're going to lose the next time the less-secure app redraws. Seems like what you really want there is preventing rendering, not preventing knowing about rendering; in which case all the information you need about whether to allow a Damage to be created is there up-front and doesn't need a devprivate. - ajax
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
