3 ms·
I don't think nobody has thought about it, but since you were apparently unaware that there was an alternative to performing several GB/s of IPC for moving buff
by johncolanduoni 9y ago
I don't think nobody has thought about it, but since you were apparently unaware that there was an alternative to performing several GB/s of IPC for moving buffers around there's obviously some options that haven't been considered. The Chromium sandbox has to deal with every issue you've listed (it's even calibrated to run ffmpeg inside the sandbox, since that's something Chromium needs to do).
- jbk 9y ago> but since you were apparently unaware that there was an alternative I will refrain from answering to such attacks. As you seem to know better, I'm waiting for your patches.
- johncolanduoni 9y agoIt's not an attack. Each platform's methods of GPU IPC are pretty sparsely documented. Two months ago I wouldn't have known about them; I only learned by working on integrating Chromium's sandbox into an application that needed to work with the GPU within a sandboxed process. That doesn't change the fact that none of the things you listed are unsupported by Chrome's sandbox model, and if you only need to establish a barrier around the video pipeline (and not e.g. VLC's ability to notice device status or interact with webcams) you don't even need 3/4 of what Chromium's sandbox has implemented. Like I said, I've actually walked the walk when it comes to using their sandbox for Windows and Linux with a process that needed to access certain user files, the GPU, and even each platform's font server equivalent, so this isn't me just spitballing about some theoretical solution.