On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 10:44:49AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:42:15PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On an unrelated note, for security reasons we should try to make the driver > > structure static, or at least move ops to a static structure. > > ITYM "const" not "static". > > "static" doesn't get you anything from a security point of view. "const" > gets you write protection, so code can't modify the function pointers.
We can't easily do that for struct drm_driver at the moment because some fields end up being modified at runtime. I suppose we could move some of those fields over to struct drm_device, which, in many cases, would make more sense anyway. What i915 is currently doing is probably fine for all existing cases, but it sets a bad example for other drivers that may end up having to drive multiple devices with one driver, so modifying the global driver is likely going to break things. Thierry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
