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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
