Pass each client we're considering to report through XaceHookClientAccess(),
so security extensions have a chance to filter them out.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Pass each client we're considering to report through XaceHookClientAccess(),
so security extensions have a chance to filter them out.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Pass each client we're considering to report through XaceHookClientAccess(),
so security extensions have a chance to filter them out.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This header isn't part of SDK and no external module using those functions,
so no need to keep them exported.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This header needs to be included first, otherwise things can easily get really
messed up. The current code only works by accident, because some other header
already including it early enough - but a subtle change in include order
can easy break it.
Thus, always make sure the header is really included first.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This header needs to be included first, otherwise things can easily get really
messed up. The current code only works by accident, because some other header
already including it early enough - but a subtle change in include order
can easy break it.
Thus, always make sure the header is really included first.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This header needs to be included first, otherwise things can easily get really
messed up. The current code only works by accident, because some other header
already including it early enough - but a subtle change in include order
can easy break it.
Thus, always make sure the header is really included first.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This header needs to be included first, otherwise things can easily get really
messed up. The current code only works by accident, because some other header
already including it early enough - but a subtle change in include order
can easy break it.
Thus, always make sure the header is really included first.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This file had been changed manually several times or at least a decode now,
so the claim it's being auto-generated isn't valid anymore.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This file had been changed manually several times or at least a decode now,
so the claim it's being auto-generated isn't valid anymore.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Usually no*Extension fields shouldn't be needed by drivers, but there
are a few exceptions: some drivers need to know whether composite or
Xinerama are active.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only used inside EXA code, not used by any drivers, so no need to
keep it exported any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used by anybody, neither Xserver nor drivers, so no need to
keep it around any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult