On 05-Jun-2004, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 12:21 +0300, Ville Syrj??l?? wrote: > > This part of the kernel should be as dumb as possible. I think the best > > interface would be simply one accepting almost complete DMA buffers. The > > only thing missing from these buffers would be real memory addresses. > > I'm not sure about that; pseudo-command buffers that the DRM parses and > generates the actual DMA buffers from on the fly might be better for > security and/or performance reasons.
Yeah, security is always an issue. Isnt there a way to abstract direct access to the hardware out, so there isnt any way to fubar the system? > > The client should just use a surface id (handed out by the memory allocator) > > instead of a real address. The kernel would then check if the client is > > allowed to use those surfaces and replace the ids with real addresses. The > > kernel should also check the buffers for other dangerous stuff. > > Seconded. > > I wonder if we can reasonably get there in a backwards compatible way... Do we really have to? I mean, I wouldnt mind telling $MODERN_KERNEL users to upgrade their X, it would be for their own good anyhow. -- Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
