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
Radeonhd repo:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot
author SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
committer SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
commit 231683e2f111bb064125f64f2da797d744cde7fa (patch)
...
PERHAPS
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 r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
committer SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14
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 r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
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 width /
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
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
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 quite
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 radeonhd,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be 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
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 a
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, makes
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, given the
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, given the
LV == Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be 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
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.
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 you
know
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
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 make ?
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 any
time
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 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 assume a
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?
People
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
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, can we still
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 time) a backdoor or
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 r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
committer SPIGOT r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
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 r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
committerSPIGOT
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Frans de Boer fr...@fransdb.nl 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
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Frans de Boer fr...@fransdb.nl 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
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 is and
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:45:15AM +, Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Frans de Boer fr...@fransdb.nl 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
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 r...@jerkcity.com 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
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 trust
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 un-noticed
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be 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
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:36:17PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be 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
37 matches
Mail list logo
