On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:36:17PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >
> > See, this was exactly the problem here. It _was_ a freedesktop admin.
> > And it was pretty clear that it was that from the onset too. Mailing
> > fd.o admins, even if i cou
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 03:36:58PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> Alan Cox wrote:
>> >> It's on a separate branch, not master. (Doesn't mean it's right, just
>> >> that it's not actually going to cripple anything or waste time for anyone
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 03:36:58PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >> It's on a separate branch, not master. (Doesn't mean it's right, just
> >> that it's not actually going to cripple anything or waste time for anyone
> >> who doesn't ask for it.)
> >
> > And how many other u
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 03:40:49PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Frans de Boer wrote:
> > Just like to inquire whether the observed behavior was a real security
> > breach - someone introducing (maybe over time) a backdoor or the like -
> > or just sloppy behavior. In other words, can we still t
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:24:12PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:32 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Radeonhd repo:
> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot
> >
> > author SPIGOT 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
> > committer SPI
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:45:15AM +, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Frans de Boer wrote:
> > Thanks Adam,
> >
> > Because of my unfamiliarity with the people involved with xorg, can anybody
> > verify the claim Adam made?
>
> I can't verify it. But I had a pretty stro
>>
>> Thanks Adam,
>>
>> Because of my unfamiliarity with the people involved with xorg, can anybody
>> verify the claim Adam made?
>> If it was just a misplaced competition effort, I can continue to rely on the
>> xorg code.
>> Also, if it turns out to be a validated claim Adam made, accept it as
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Frans de Boer wrote:
> Thanks Adam,
>
> Because of my unfamiliarity with the people involved with xorg, can anybody
> verify the claim Adam made?
I can't verify it. But I had a pretty strong suspicion. :)
> If it was just a misplaced competition effort, I can co
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Frans de Boer wrote:
> On 11/24/2010 01:24 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:32 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>
>
> Radeonhd repo:
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot
>
> authorSPIGOT 2010-1
On 11/24/2010 01:24 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:32 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>
>> Radeonhd repo:
>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot
>>
>> author SPIGOT 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
>> committerSPIGOT 2010-11
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:32 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> Radeonhd repo:
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot
>
> authorSPIGOT 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
> committer SPIGOT 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
> commit231683e2f111bb0641
On 11/24/2010 01:04 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Frans de Boer wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/2010 12:40 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>>
>>> Frans de Boer wrote:
>>>
>>>
Just like to inquire whether the observed behavior was a real security
breach - someone introducing (maybe over
Frans de Boer wrote:
> On 11/24/2010 12:40 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> Frans de Boer wrote:
>>
>>> Just like to inquire whether the observed behavior was a real security
>>> breach - someone introducing (maybe over time) a backdoor or the like -
>>> or just sloppy behavior. In other words, ca
> What would you suggest should be done next? Checking logs for traces
> of this? Those which could reveal this information might be gone already.
Looking for anything which is in the tree but not in or not matching the
mail archive. Sounds like a job for a perl nutter 8)
And chasing down who did
On 11/24/2010 12:40 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Frans de Boer wrote:
>
>> Just like to inquire whether the observed behavior was a real security
>> breach - someone introducing (maybe over time) a backdoor or the like -
>> or just sloppy behavior. In other words, can we still trust the xorg
>>
Frans de Boer wrote:
> Just like to inquire whether the observed behavior was a real security
> breach - someone introducing (maybe over time) a backdoor or the like -
> or just sloppy behavior. In other words, can we still trust the xorg
> repositories or are they compromised in some way?
>
> Peo
Alan Cox wrote:
>> It's on a separate branch, not master. (Doesn't mean it's right, just
>> that it's not actually going to cripple anything or waste time for anyone
>> who doesn't ask for it.)
>
> And how many other un-noticed commits did this person make ? Until you
> know that you have to ass
Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> Still, would you really want to trust your code to freedesktop.org after
> this, knowing that there's someone with root access pulling stunts like
> this?
Feel free to keep your code somewhere else - oh wait, you already do.
--
-Alan Coopersmith-alan.coop
Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Le 23/11/2010 17:22, Alan Coopersmith a écrit :
>> Several? I've yet to see many common monitors larger than 2560 pixels,
>> so that's still 14 screens wide/high.
>
> http://insitu.lri.fr/Projects/WILD
>
> Yes this is research, yes we won't have that on our wrist watches an
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:56:52PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > It's on a separate branch, not master. (Doesn't mean it's right, just
> > that it's not actually going to cripple anything or waste time for anyone
> > who doesn't ask for it.)
>
> And how many other un-noticed commits did this person
Le 23/11/2010 17:22, Alan Coopersmith a écrit :
> Several? I've yet to see many common monitors larger than 2560 pixels,
> so that's still 14 screens wide/high.
http://insitu.lri.fr/Projects/WILD
Yes this is research, yes we won't have that on our wrist watches any
time soon...
But! InSitu's (v
On 11/23/2010 11:56 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> It's on a separate branch, not master. (Doesn't mean it's right, just
>> that it's not actually going to cripple anything or waste time for anyone
>> who doesn't ask for it.)
>>
> And how many other un-noticed commits did this person make ? Until yo
> It's on a separate branch, not master. (Doesn't mean it's right, just
> that it's not actually going to cripple anything or waste time for anyone
> who doesn't ask for it.)
And how many other un-noticed commits did this person make ? Until you
know that you have to assume a complete compromise
> "LV" == Luc Verhaegen writes:
LV> So, who has root access to annarchy or any other of the servers, and who
LV> thought this would be funny, and who deserves to lose his access right
LV> here, right now?
s/annarchy/kemper/, yes? Annarchy is supposed to have a read-only nfs
mount of the g
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 08:32:10AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:57 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> > It is clear that this is not a normal security breach, as this
> >> commit is
> >> > fully in line with the naming scheme used by fd.o. Plus, gi
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 08:32:10AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:57 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> > It is clear that this is not a normal security breach, as this
> >> commit is
> >> > fully in line with the naming scheme used by fd.o. Plus, gi
Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:57 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>> > It is clear that this is not a normal security breach, as this
>> commit is
>> > fully in line with the naming scheme used by fd.o. Plus, given the
>> > history of radeonhd, combined with who i think have root access
Teika Kazura wrote:
> Dear List,
> X coordinates are 16 bits, but are there any plan to promote them
> to 32 bits? I couldn't find one in the Xorg site.
It's not a simple "promotion" but breaking compatibility with the
existing protocol - it's on the list of things to fix if we ever
get around to
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:25:33AM -0500, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:57 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
>> > > It is clear that this is not a normal security breach, as this
>> > commit is
>> > > fully in line with the nam
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:25:33AM -0500, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:57 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> > > It is clear that this is not a normal security breach, as this
> > commit is
> > > fully in line with the naming scheme used by fd.o. Plus, given the
> > > history of r
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:57 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > It is clear that this is not a normal security breach, as this
> commit is
> > fully in line with the naming scheme used by fd.o. Plus, given the
> > history of radeonhd, combined with who i think have root access,
> makes
> > it seem
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 10:29 +0200, Deniz Fer wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I have collected the logs.
> libX11_compile_log has the output of the following command(I guess this has
> much information):
>
> ./util/modular/build.sh --clone -p --autoresume built.modules
> /home/yaltes/Desktop/xorg
>
> l
Hi Teika,
As far as I know there hasn't been a lot of development to fix that,
theres not enough pain for now.
Unfourtunatly it would mean re-implementing a lot of X11's core
protocol as new extensions.
Probably a better way to fix that would be to create X12, or to use
something different like e
Teika Kazura wrote:
> X coordinates are 16 bits, but are there any plan to promote them
> to 32 bits? I couldn't find one in the Xorg site.
>
> In fact, 16 bits are not sufficient these days. If you have
> several screens and enlarge your desktop with a window manager
> to several X screens widt
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:47:19PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:32:30PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Radeonhd repo:
> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot
> >
> > author SPIGOT 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
> > committ
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:32:30PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> Radeonhd repo:
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot
>
> authorSPIGOT 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
> committer SPIGOT 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
> commit231683e2f11
Radeonhd repo:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot
author SPIGOT 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
committer SPIGOT 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
commit 231683e2f111bb064125f64f2da797d744cde7fa (patch)
...
PERHAPS BONGHITS WILL FIX MY MAKEFILE
Signe
On 11/21/2010 06:20 PM, Neil Whelchel wrote:
On Sunday, November 21, 2010 05:44:32 pm Peter Hutterer wrote:
... elision by patrick ...
gimp grabs the device when a button press is registered on the canvas, but
does not do so for events outside the canvas (well, because it wouldn't get
them since
38 matches
Mail list logo
