Re: [Dri-devel] Re: Versioning of kernel module names

[Allen A. <ak...@po...>]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 07:34:47PM -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
| 
|              ... It means for example that the stupid security holes DRM has 
| been plagued with get found

For the record, security has been a major design consideration for the
DRI from day one -- security is one of the main reasons there *is* a
DRI project distinct from Utah GLX in the first place.

Not all apparent security bugs are real -- for example, many of the
problems found in the DRI code by the Stanford checker are false
positives.  And it's probably not obvious to folks outside the DRI
project just how many security problems (usually precipitated by
flawed hardware) are already solved by the DRI design and driver
implementations, at significant cost in performance when necessary.

Undoubtedly there are more DRI security problems to be solved, but in
the meantime it's important for us to maintain mutual respect and be
aware that the issue is absolutely not being ignored.  Nor, in my
opinion, is it being handled carelessly.

Allen
(Not a DRI implementor, but a close observer.)