Daniel Stone wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:01:02AM +0200, (not Julien Cristau) wrote: >> Sorry if this is not the right way of contacting you - I'm not sure >> where to go with this one. >> >> The "fix" made to XCreateImage breaks the protocol between client and >> Xlib because the extended test makes a wrong assumption. >> >> XCreateImage now compares the servers bits-per-pixel with the >> bits_per_pixel in the supplied image (for ZPixmap). >> >> In our case we have code using 24 bits_per_pixel for depth 24 images (3 >> bytes per pixel). Many X servers use 32 bits_per_pixel for depth 24 >> pixmaps. >> >> The "fix" now require that image data MUST use the same bits_per_pixel >> as the X-server! >> >> We have had a lot of problems as the "fix" is being distributed as part >> of Sun Solaris security updates! > > Hi, > So you'd like to create images with a different bpp, but equal depth > (e.g. packed 24)? Good catch on the memory leak, though. > > Can you elaborate more on why the 'bits_per_line < min_bits_per_line' > test is wrong? >
Hi, I recently got more reports that this fix is causing problems in real world applications (Cadence Allegro on Solaris). I have a few questions here: - Daniel, is creating images with a different bpp, but equal depth, something bad (ie which can have security issues) or just something weird that most applications should do unless they know what they are doing? - is the bits_per_line < min_bits_per_line test wrong only because of the case above (since min_bits_per_line is computed from the server bpp it can be larger than the actual value passed), or are there other cases? -- Matthieu Herrb _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
