https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80419
--- Comment #97 from Jose Fonseca <jfonseca at vmware.com> --- I'm pushing a slightly modified version of Roland's patch. (In reply to Nicolai Hähnle from comment #96) > Created attachment 120742 [details] > more conservative apitrace patch > > For what it's worth, I've attached a modified version of Roland's patch that > is slightly more conservative, guarding against some stupid end values and > checking the indices. Not sure which patch is really better though, in the > end it depends on how much broken software is out there. As far as I can > tell, XCOM apitraces work with both variants. Yes, I don't think this is necessary. If apitrace needs more resiliency, then the best approach would be to setup a segv handler to cope with out-of-bounds reads. This code path is only used for user arrays. (VBOs don't need this special treatment.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20160104/11232b25/attachment.html>
