On 08/12/17 16:57, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 09:41 +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote: >> On 08/06/17 22:51, Keith Packard wrote: >>> Adam Jackson <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> We're not wrapping all the ways a cursor can be destroyed, so this array >>>> ends up with stale data. Rather than try harder to wrap more code paths, >>>> just look up the cursor when we need it. >>> I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter -- DisplayCursor is only ever called >>> while *both* cursors are still valid. Here's the DIX code: >>> >>> (*pScreen->DisplayCursor) (pDev, pScreen, cursor); >>> FreeCursor(pSprite->current, (Cursor) 0); >>> pSprite->current = RefCursor(cursor); >>> >>> Note that InitializeSprite also sets pSprite->current *before* calling >>> DisplayCursor, which breaks your assumption. I don't think that matters >>> as it should only be done before a client could possibly know about the >>> device? >>> >>> I can see why you might want to get rid of the magic array; seems like >>> this should just be using a private in the device. >> So what's happening with this ? >> >> I've just posted a fix which has been on RedHat's radar for 18 months >> with the same patch > My rhbz folder has 125 new mails in it since I left work yesterday. > Bugs from actual customers (as opposed to random yahoo email addresses) > tend to get prioritized by our processes. I assume you made a typo in > describing the bug as "fixed in RedHat's bugzilla database" and meant > "filed", as the bug has not been closed nor does it contain a patch. > >> You can easily crash the Xserver without this fix. > Yes, that's why I posted the patch in the first place. I saw your patch > and did indeed suspect it was the same issue as the one I'd sent; > happened to be working on something else that day, sorry I didn't jump > all over it. Normally the way we say we think a patch is a good idea > is: > > Reviewed-by: Adam Jackson <[email protected]> > > Now in practice the set of people who review patches is quite small, > which is a shame, because I'll believe an r-b from just about anybody. > If anyone dislikes the existing pace of development, code review would > be a sincerely welcome contribution. > >> You can easily crash the Xserver without this fix. > Thanks for confirming that it works. I've merged my version on style > grounds, getting rid of the array seems like a more robust solution. >
I didn't say I tested your version. The version posted on the RedHat Bugzilla database works and seems far more robust to me given Keith's comments. Alan. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
