Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 09:10:19 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysctl -A Message-ID: <19970427091019.YV06768@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199704262016.NAA07533@phaeton.artisoft.com>; from Terry Lambert on Apr 26, 1997 13:16:58 -0700 References: <19970426184806.CQ22306@uriah.heep.sax.de> <199704262016.NAA07533@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Terry Lambert wrote: > > securelevel > 0 and X11 are mutually exclusive. > My DEC Alpha runs at secure level 1, and X works fine. So now, look and tell us how they're doing it. I know how XFree86 avoids the problem on NetBSD, with the NetBSD aperture driver. But i also know that this is only another kind of a hack, and it's arguable whether you are still allowed to call it `securelevel 1' with the aperture driver. It's easy to find a race to break the security model. Pulling all the dix code from the Xserver into the kernel would be the technically correct solution, but is out of the question due to the sheer amount of work required (and due to decentralizing the maintenance that's currently done in an operating-system independent way by the XFree86 team). -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970427091019.YV06768>