[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: freedesktop-xorg
Subject: Re: pci rework not quite ready yet?
From: Keith Packard <keithp () keithp ! com>
Date: 2007-08-29 23:37:22
Message-ID: 1188430642.21502.174.camel () koto ! keithp ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 10:40 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> Yeah, I guess my main concern is how buggy some of the core X usage of
> bus addresses has been. As long as we can avoid that by making clear
> the difference between bus, CPU physical, GTT virtual, and process
> virtual I'll be happy.
Yeah, drivers already have three address spaces to work in, so adding
another will be confusing, but probably not mind blowing.
> Sure, but still, having a separate call for this might make more sense.
I just prefer to avoid extra calls in the driver which should always be
there anyway.
> FYI, subrange mappings don't buy us anything on a security basis ATM,
> since the sysfs resourceX files used by pciaccess are managed as whole
> files, not as collections of pages. We can't do fine grained access
> control without using device specific ioctls or something. So having a
> subrange API will only help with attribute control, not security, so it
> might be best to do it separately.
Separate still means more calls, and the common case (one mapping per
BAR) is twice as complex in the driver.
> I hope we can get to that point eventually. X has too many slightly
> overlapping and obsoleted APIs as it is... :)
Then we'd better force drivers to migrate completely by removing the
existing xf86Map APIs.
--
keith.packard@intel.com
["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]
_______________________________________________
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic