On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 13:05 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 6 March 2018 at 12:26, Iago Toral <ito...@igalia.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 12:16 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > > > 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 <basni@chromium.o > > > > > rg> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:02 AM, Iago Toral <itoral@igalia.c > > > > > > om> > > > > > > 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). > > > > If there is such an application, and this patch makes it into the > > stable release, that application will probably start to crash. > > Such an application will crash _regardless_ of the patch, as > mentioned earlier. > That is as per Lenny's analysis - haven't checked it personally.
I am not sure why he says that, the point of using vkGet*Addr is to get a driver function pointer so you can skip the loader completely. If you get a valid pointer and you pass valid parameters to it, I think it should work be just fine, but have't tested it myself, I can try to do that and see what happens. Iago > -Emil > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
