Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:53:05 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: High-priority library replacements? On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 07:57:36PM +0700, Muhammad Sumyandityo Noor wrote: > You meant replacement for Mesa? Because TinyGL is software renderer. > It's unlikely people will utilize software renderer. As for embedded > system, each SoCs provides their own userland to utilize its > hardware accelerator. I don't really understand the GL architecture presently in use well enough to know the right solutions, but if I'm not mistaken, it involves loading dynamic modules, possibly even binaryware hardware-vendor-provided ones, into the address space of your application. This seems like a recipe for disaster. Software-rendered GL is definitely not the solution, but I wonder if it would be reasonable to create a library that provides the OpenGL API with NO namespace pollution or introduction of dangerous code into the application's address space, by cooperating with a separate process via shared memory. On modern Linux, this separate process could use Linux namespaces to completely throw away all privileges except to the graphics device. Then the nasty legacy OpenGL code could run in a sandbox. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.