On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 18:05 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 01:19 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Disagree also about axing the comment - its useful to know why something > > is being done. > > Wait, the comment says "TODO: Remove this; we can't afford to let > userspace control something that locks up the graphics card so easily." > We're not removing the code being referred to, as far as I've heard, and > "we can't afford" is contradictory to what we have agreed on for DRI > policy (drivers can't escalate privelege, but can hang the machine).
When did this 'agreement' occur? I can't remember agreeing to that. That we may not be able to prevent all such cases doesn't mean we shouldn't prevent the ones we can. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast | http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
