The function returns X result codes, but -1 isn't a valid value here.
Therefore all callers explicitly translate -1 to BadValue, so we can return
that directly instead of -1.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need to have it split into two functions one just wrapping
another, so move it all into one.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used by any drivers/modules, so no need to keep it exported.
Also adding a bit of documentation.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Little helper function for checking whether a resource XID
belongs to the server itself.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Almost all callers have ClientPtr anyways, so we're just doing duplicate
array lookups. Just using ClientPtr directly is easier anyways.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Retrieves the ClientPtr for the owner of given resource.
This way reducing the sites directly accessing clients[] array.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Make it type-safe and a bit more obvious what it really does,
also adding some inline documentation. Since it's just some
bit shifting magic, it's qualified for inlining.
The CLIENT_ID() macro isn't used by any external modules, so the
new function doesn't need to be in a public header.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Helper function for retrieving the owning client of an OtherClients.
It's an actual function, so callers don't need access to internal
knowledge (definition of struct _OtherClients, clients[] array, ...)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Helper function for retrieving the owning client of an InputClients.
It's an actual function, so callers don't need access to internal
knowledge (definition of struct _InputClients, clients[] array, ...)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Helper function for retrieving the owning client of a grab.
It's an actual function, so callers don't need access to internal
knowledge (definition of GrabRec, clients[] array, ...)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Hide internals (drop the need to include windowstr.h), make it typesafe
as well as the naming easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Some callers treating XID = 0 as a sign for non-existing resource.
Practically should not happen, but nevertheless adding extra
protection, just in case.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Both xlib as well as the Xserver use the same identifier "GC" for
different types. While on xlib it's just the numerical ID of a GC,
the xserver defines a struct for it by the same name. This is this
ugly and needs ridiculous hacks for Xserver code that needs xlib.
Easy to solve by just renaming the GC typedef to GCRec (consistent
with how we're naming other structs) and replacing GC* by GCPtr.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The function actually operates on ClientRec, so we can pass it in
directly, so it doesn't need to fetch it from clients[] array itself.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's only caller already has a pointer to client struct, so no need to
let this function look it up again in the global clients array.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Align the function's parameter names with those defined in the prototype.
Especially it makes code easier to understand if the result parameter
is also named "result" here, as in the prototype.
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>
It's always enabled for very long time now (at least since meson transition),
there doesn't seem to be any need to ever disable it again. So we can reduce
code complexity by removing all the ifdef's.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Right now, extensions that need to be called after the CreateScreenResources
proc had been run, must wrap the screen proc vector directly (all of them
forming kind of daisy chain), and so - when called - temporarily restore the
previous one, call it, wrap again, and if the call was successful finally
doing it's own stuff. (same is done for many other procs)
While that approach is looking nice and elegant on the drawing board, it's
complicated, dangerous like a chainsaw and makes debugging hard, leading to
pretty blurred API borders.
Instead introducing a simple approach for letting extension hook into a
post-CreateScreenResources callback list safely, w/o having to care much
about side effects with the call chain. Extensions now can simply register
their business logic and get called back - w/o ever having to mess with the
ScreenRec's internal structures.
Note that these hooks are executed *AFTER* the original CreateScreenResources()
proc had been called SUCCESSFULLY (returned TRUE), so callees can rely on
the DDX/driver had already done it's job.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Right now, extension specific pixmap destruction procedures are implemented
by wrapping the ScreenRec's DestroyPixmap() proc pointer: the extensions are
storing the original pointer in their private data and putting in their own one.
On each call, their proc restores the original one, calls it, and switches back
again. When multiple extensions doing so, they're forming a kind of daisy chain.
(the same is done for lots of other procs)
While that approach is looking nice and elegant on the drawing board, it's
complicated, dangerous like a chainsaw and makes debugging hard, leading to
pretty blurred API borders.
It's even getting worse: the proc also has to do ref counting, and only destroy
the pixmap if refconter reaching zero - that's all done in the individual screen
drivers. Therefore, all extensions must check for refcnt == 1, in order to know
when to really act.
This commit introduces a simple approach for letting extension hook into the
pixmap destruction safely, w/o having to care much about side effects with
the call chain. Extensions now can simply register their destructor proc
(and an opaque pointer) and get called back - w/o ever having to mess with
the ScreenRec's internal structures.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Right now, extension specific actions on screen closing implemented by wrapping
the ScreenRec's PositionWindow() proc pointer: the extensions are storing the
original pointer in their private data and putting in their own one. On each
call, their proc restores the original one, calls it, and switches back again.
When multiple extensions doing so, they're forming a kind of daisy chain.
(the same is done for lots of other procs)
While that approach is looking nice and elegant on the drawing board, it's
complicated, dangerous like a chainsaw and makes debugging hard, leading to
pretty blurred API borders.
This commit introduces a simple approach for letting extension hook into the
screen closing path safely, w/o having to care much about side effects with
the call chain. Extensions now can simply register their hook proc (and an
opaque pointer) and get called back - w/o ever having to mess with the
ScreenRec's internal structures. These hooks are called before the original
vector (usually handled by DDX/screen driver directly) is called.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Wrapping ScreenRec's function pointers is problematic for many reasons,
so use the new window position notify hook instead.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Right now, extension specific actions on window positioning are implemented
by wrapping the ScreenRec's PositionWindow() proc pointer: the extensions are
storing the original pointer in their private data and putting in their own one.
On each call, their proc restores the original one, calls it, and switches back
again. When multiple extensions doing so, they're forming a kind of daisy chain.
(the same is done for lots of other procs)
While that approach is looking nice and elegant on the drawing board, it's
complicated, dangerous like a chainsaw and makes debugging hard, leading to
pretty blurred API borders.
This commit introduces a simple approach for letting extension hook into the
window positioning path safely, w/o having to care much about side effects
with the call chain. Extensions now can simply register their hook proc
(and an opaque pointer) and get called back - w/o ever having to mess with
the ScreenRec's internal structures. These hooks are called before the original
vector (usually handled by DDX/screen driver directly) is called.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Right now, extension specific window destruction procedures are implemented
by wrapping the ScreenRec's DestroyWindow() proc pointer: the extensions are
storing the original pointer in their private data and putting in their own one.
On each call, their proc restores the original one, calls it, and switches back
again. When multiple extensions doing so, they're forming a kind of daisy chain.
(the same is done for lots of other procs)
While that approach is looking nice and elegant on the drawing board, it's
complicated, dangerous like a chainsaw and makes debugging hard, leading to
pretty blurred API borders.
This commit introduces a simple approach for letting extension hook into the
window destruction safely, w/o having to care much about side effects with
the call chain. Extensions now can simply register their destructor proc
(and an opaque pointer) and get called back - w/o ever having to mess with
the ScreenRec's internal structures.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Allow using it by other places outside this file, so we can also support
callback lists in dynamically allocated structures:
Those cases need to explicitly call DeleteCallbackList() before free()ing
the structures - otherwise we're getting heap corruptions, because the
actual deletion can happen asynchronously.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Instead of retrieving the screen index from ScreenRec and passing this,
so the ScreenRec is looked up again, just pass in the ScreenPtr that
already have anyways.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Make it possible to call FreeGC() w/o prior NULL checks.
In case of NULL, BadMatch is returned.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Adding a little bit more logging to the startup process, eg. telling
when outputs or inputs have been initialized. Serving as a little aid for
debugging driver problems.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Even though it might never be actually hit, it's better to have an
(really cheap) extra check, just in case.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Even though it probably won't be hit ever, it's still better to be
really sure instead of some remote chance for hard segfault.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
As safety precaution, clear the pointers to extion records that just
have been free()ed.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The checking / branchin isn't entirely trivial to understand, and the
analyzer also gets confused. So rewrite it in an simpler way that's
easier to understand both the human reader as well as the analyzer.
(and so get rid of yet another false alarm)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
For type-safety turn xfreeData() macro into an inline function.
Also adding some checks against accidentially free()'ing global data.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The analyzer giving a false alarm on potential NULL-pointer deref here.
Even though that case can't happen, it's also not immediately clear
to the human reader.
To make both the analyzer as well human reader happier, reformulating
this function to by using fast-return pattern.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The analyzer is wrong here, because the free'd closure pointer really points
to some calloc()'d chunk, instead of the PolyText()'s stack frame.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's safer not relying on all ScreenProc's actually filled.
../dix/events.c: In function ‘CheckPhysLimits’:
../dix/events.c:780:14: warning: dereference of NULL ‘pScreen’ [CWE-476] [-Wanalyzer-null-dereference]
780 | (*pScreen->SetCursorPosition)
| ~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The pointer to the window properties is currently inside the WindowOptional
structure, which may or may not exist at any given time. Thus, before accessing
those fields, at least need to check whether it exists, potentially need to
create it first.
Since a pointer is small (in relation to WindowRec) and windows having properties
is a pretty common, we can make our life much simpler here by moving the pointer
directly into WindowRec, so we don't need extra WindowOptionalRec allocation.
This also fixes an analyzer warning on potential NULL dereference issue:
| ../dix/property.c: In function ‘dixChangeWindowProperty’:
|../dix/property.c:343:37: warning: dereference of NULL ‘*pWin.optional’ [CWE-476] [-Wanalyzer-null-dereference]
| 343 | pProp->next = pWin->optional->userProps;
| | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult