Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 16:44:42 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 253277] x11/xtrans: Don't unlink existing UNIX sockets => allows multiple X sessions from sddm Message-ID: <bug-253277-7141-rusbJGhUyc@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-253277-7141@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-253277-7141@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D253277 --- Comment #8 from Olivier Certner <olivier.freebsd@free.fr> --- Hi Jan, I provided a lot of background and explanations (and asked questions) in th= is mail almost 2 years ago: https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2021-July/058735.html Every line of it is still valid. Unfortunately, I never received any respo= nse, and after some months I kinda lost hope in upstream doing anything on this matter. Thanks for pointing me to Jon Turnery's MR, which I was not aware of. Upst= ream doesn't seem to have made any progress since then (almost 1 year and a half ago). Glancing at the MR, I have doubts about their approach, in particular the fact that this should be fixed in the server. I think it is likely it should fixed in xtrans instead. After all, this is where sockets are creat= ed or unlinked, which should not happen without a locking mechanism. Moreover= , as pointed out in the mail, the current lock file mechanism in the X server is logically incorrect and could be defeated in arguably rare or provoked situations. I may try to give it a new shot soon (next week perhaps), but not making ha= rd promises. Thanks and regards. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-253277-7141-rusbJGhUyc>