linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] drm/i915/gvt: Adding interface so user space can get the dma-buf

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1495548597.30747.8.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 May 2017 16:09:57 +0200
From:   Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To:     Xiaoguang Chen <xiaoguang.chen@...el.com>,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com,
        zhiyuan.lv@...el.com, intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        zhi.a.wang@...el.com, kevin.tian@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] drm/i915/gvt: Adding interface so user space can
 get the dma-buf

  Hi,

> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> index ae46105..285dc16 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> @@ -502,10 +502,58 @@ struct vfio_pci_hot_reset {
>  
>  #define VFIO_DEVICE_PCI_HOT_RESET	_IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE +
> 13)
>  
> +/**
> + * VFIO_DEVICE_GET_FD - _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 14, __u32)
> + *
> + * Create a fd for a vfio device based on the input type
> + * Vendor driver should handle this ioctl to create a fd and manage
> the
> + * life cycle of this fd.
> + *
> + * Return: a fd if vendor support that type, -errno if not supported
> + */
> +
> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_GET_FD	_IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 14)
> +
> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_DMABUF_MGR_FD	0 /* Supported fd types */
> +
> +/*
> + * VFIO_DEVICE_QUERY_PLANE - _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 15, struct
> plane_info)
> + * Query plane information for a plane
> + */
> +struct plane_info {

That is a pretty generic name.  vfio_vgpu_plane_info?  Or
vfio_dmabuf_plane_info?

> +	__u32 plane_id;
> +	__u32 drm_format;
> +	__u32 width;
> +	__u32 height;
> +	__u32 stride;
> +	__u32 start;
> +	__u32 x_pos;
> +	__u32 y_pos;
> +	__u32 size;
> +	__u64 drm_format_mod;
> +};
> +
> +#define VFIO_PRIMARY_PLANE		1
> +#define VFIO_CURSOR_PLANE		2

I think we should use "enum drm_plane_type" values instead of creating
something new.

cheers,
  Gerd