On dt, 2013-10-01 at 13:50 +0100, Neil Roberts wrote: > Hi > > José Bollo <[email protected]> writes: > > > That is a really interesting point. > > I have two questions about it: > > - Is it normal that the client trucates the buffer? Is your patch > > designed to allow normal operations? or to allow forbiden uses? > > - If it is not "normal", is there good reasons to continue to > > serve a nasty client? > > No, it's not normal that the client would truncate the buffer. The patch > is effectively designed to disallow this and recover gracefully instead > of making the compositor crash. It won't continue to serve the client > but instead it will send it an error.
I checked it: the error currently emitted is WL_SHM_ERROR_INVALID_FD. That is ambiguous what can be improved. Then I discovered that posting errors are fatal for the client/connection what I wasn't aware of despite the documentation "protocol/wayland.xml". But I'm not as good in english to improve that point of the documentation. > The problem with truncating is > probably only an issue if there are malicious clients. However the case > where the client sends the wrong size to wl_shm.create_pool would be > worth guarding against in any case because it would be quite easy for a > buggy client to get that wrong and the compositor should really be > robust against that. Yeah, really needed. regards josé > > Regards, > - Neil _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
