On 6 March 2018 at 12:09, Iago Toral <ito...@igalia.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 11:21 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: >> On 6 March 2018 at 09:57, Bas Nieuwenhuizen <ba...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:02 AM, Iago Toral <ito...@igalia.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 12:11 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: >> > > > Hi Iago, >> > > > >> > > > Top level questions: >> > > > >> > > > I think this and the original commit should go to stable right? >> > > >> > > I am not sure if this qualifies for stable: these patches don't >> > > fix any >> > > user-visible bugs. If an application was calling >> > > vkGetDeviceProcAddr to >> > > get pointers to non-device functions (which is incorrect by the >> > > spec) >> > > the previous behavior would allow it to get away with it without >> > > issues, bit with these patches it will start to crash since it >> > > will >> > > receive NULL pointers. >> > > >> >> According to Lenny's comment in the github issue there's nothing to >> be >> concerned. Namely: >> - "The pointers being returned are invalid. ... trying to use them >> will result in a crash." >> - "Wolfenstein was acquiring, but not using the pointers." > > Because it is not using the pointers :), if some other app is using > them it will start to crash. > > But that was not my point, my point was that this doesn't fix anything > for users, so I was questioning whether it was material for stable > based on that. > Surely we don't want to apps be written against the current incorrect behaviour? Which may go unnoticed since there are no validation/loader checks for this (based on the github issue).
But if you feel so strongly about it, fair enough. -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
