4 ms·

Actually caring a tiny bit about security and not letting everything be a keylogger is not an “unfixable flaw”, there is working screen sharing for basically ev

• icedchai 4y ago
  How true this is. In the 90's, at least one commercial Unix vendor shipped their systems with X11 open to the world (equivalent of "xhost +", full remote access, no security.) In the days of no firewalls, that was a fun time.
• sprash 4y ago
  Wayland does not care about security. In fact it does not even offer standardized access control protocols. The flaw here (among many others) is that the protocol that is responsible for negotiating display output for multiple processes (which is what Wayland tries to be) should also contain standardized interfaces to exchange that output among processes, but Wayland doesn't.
  • tadfisher 4y ago
    No. Wayland is a display protocol, not a general-purpose IPC, no matter how allergic to DBus you are.
    • sprash 4y ago
      Yes. Wayland is a display protocol, not a general-purpose IPC. Hence it must contain access control interfaces for buffers. Only the compositor has access to the composited image therefore is the only program able to make screenshots and full screen sharing. Furthermore, efficient sharing of single application windows is only possible with direct memory access to the buffer which also is something the compositor does/has. The Display protocol is the only sensible place to negotiate access to GPU resources.
      • QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
        >The Display protocol is the only sensible place to negotiate access to GPU resources. No, GPU resources can come from any number of other places. That's literally the purpose of direct rendering. Any applications using GPU compute can produce them without requiring a connection to the display server. There's no reason to put that in Wayland or restrict it to the compositor. There's already a much better protocol for sharing GPU buffers: Pipewire. Dbus is only there to act as the glue between a Wayland compositor and Pipewire.
        • sprash 4y ago
          [flagged]
          • QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
            No, with direct rendering the display server uses the same API as any other process that uses the GPU. The way to fix stuttering is to fix scheduling in the kernel. XGetImage is comparing apples to oranges. That doesn't use the GPU at all, that does a copy into main memory. Pipewire is complicated because it has to handle format negotiation and conversion and audio support and a lot of other things that make sense for generically transferring video between processes but are outside the scope of the display server. Can you please knock off the conspiracy theories and flames? What are you hoping to accomplish by hurting people like this on the internet?
            • sprash 4y ago
              [flagged]
              • tadfisher 4y ago
                > The whole ecosystem is garbage and is either conceived by complete moronic retards or with the purpose of sabotage. The latter is more likely, nobody can be that stupid. > This exactly the behaviour that I would expect from Wayland apologists, though. Your arguments are obviously wrong and pointless and the best thing you can come up with is shaming other people into self censorship. Yeah, I'm going to shame you for that. That kind of language isn't going to convince anyone, and it's actively harmful. Please stop.