Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:36:22 -0500 (EST) | From | James A Simmons <> | Subject | Re: [linux-fbdev] Re: vm86 in kernel [was: vesafb...] |
| |
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Aki M Laukkanen wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, James A Simmons wrote: > > > cleaned up/completed as planned (Alan)? In this case would you accept > > > calling PMI functions from kernel-space or should it be done from > > > user-space? > > The purpose of fbdev was to have mode setting in the kernel. I know > > So you're saying that the patch shouldn't be included in the kernel?
No. I'm saying be careful what you allow from userspace :)
> Obviously you misread. Jeff Garzik's proposal was to get rid of the > separate dev/vesafb device and do the communication via /dev/fb ioctl > interface. Supposedly all the people in the video group are "trusted" but > that nevertheless opens a whole new can of worms.
I did misread you. Soory about that. I agree with the idea of extra ioctls to /dev/fb would be better. Their are two reason for the "trusting" problem. The reason /dev/fb needs root is because of VT switching and the ablity to mapping MMIO regions . Some cards are brain dead that they mix mode setting registers with accel registers :( I have patches that deal with this so /dev/fb will be safe in the future.
> See my vesafb patch and vesafb_dev_close(). Nobody's trying to restart > anything. At close time all the framebuffer operations are reverted back > to their `dummyŽ counterparts which simply return an error or do nothing > if the user tries to change modes etc.
Okay.
Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" James Simmons (o_ fbdev/gfx developer (o_ (o_ //\ http://www.linux-fbdev.org (/)_ (/)_ V_/_ http://linuxgfx.sourceforge.net
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |