On 07/09/2015 02:21 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
That is more or less what was the idea before the thread derailed.
I have no idea why you think my proposal "derailed" this when I was
attempting to describe EXACTLY the same thing you are, except I replaced
"fd" with a "key" which I figured is a 128-bit random number or a text
representation of that number.
Something like:
low-priv-client:
xdg_surf = xdg_shell.get_xdg_surface
fd = export(xdg_surf)
* pass fd to high-priv-client via dbus *
In my version:
key = export(xdg_surf)
* pass key to high-priv-client via any mechanism that can send a
128-bit number, such as using argv.
high-priv-client:
* receive fd from low-priv-client via dbus *
xdg_foreign = import(fd)
In my version
* recieve key by whatever mechanism
xdg_foreign = import(key, xdg_surface)
I think the import needs to indicate the interface it expects. This
allows the child to use a different version of the api, and insure the
correct wl_proxy is created.
xdg_surf = xdg_shell.get_xdg_surface
xdg_surf.set_parent(xdg_foreign)
I think that if we clarify what happens if the exported surfaces
disappears (which is the race you are referring to I suppose),
That is why I said there would need to be a destroy event.
if
we force the set_parent(foreign) to always stack above the foreign tree
(similar to how subsurfaces stacking works), what would the security
implications be?
Arrgh! As I have posted about 10 times now, it is EXACTLY how subsurface
stacking works, and it should be using the SAME api! The only difference
between a child window and a subsurface is that the compositor is
allowed to insert other surfaces between a child and it's parent.
I'm sorry I'm being abrasive in my posts but it seems I am hitting a
brick wall. I try really hard to describe an idea, and then EXACTLY the
same idea is posted as "here is what we want before Bill derailed it!"
_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
