Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 22:25:20 +1000 From: Greg Black <gjb-freebsd@gba.oz.au> To: Robert Watson <robert+freebsd@cyrus.watson.org> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Module magic Message-ID: <19990713122520.5758.qmail@alice.gba.oz.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990713062706.14450C-100000@fledge.watson.org> of Tue, 13 Jul 1999 06:34:49 -0400 References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990713062706.14450C-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson writes: > > > > FWIW, I believe NetBSD systems (and OpenBSD systems) ship configured to > > > > boot with securelevel == 0, as opposed to FreeBSD which appears to default > > > > to -1. > > > > > > We think our users are more concerned about X working. > > > > Are you saying that X does not work when securelevel >= 0 under > > FreeBSD? > > If I recall, the XiG Accelerated X product requires direct access to > memory. vm_mmap.c: > > [...] > > Their code should probably not do this, as direct memory access violates > kernel safety. Can anybody tell me if this breakage only applies to XiG's Accelerated X or if it is also an issue with XFree86? -- Greg Black -- <gjb@acm.org> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990713122520.5758.qmail>