linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] [media] vb2: add is

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: <20180115175554.GB9598@jade>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:55:54 -0200
From:   Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>
To:     Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
Cc:     Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...omium.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
        Pawel Osciak <pawel@...iak.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>,
        Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@....com>,
        Thierry Escande <thierry.escande@...labora.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] [media] vb2: add is_unordered callback for drivers

2018-01-15 Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>:

> On 01/15/2018 01:01 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > 2018-01-15 Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...omium.org>:
> > 
> >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:07 AM, Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org> wrote:
> >>> From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.com>
> >>>
> >>> Explicit synchronization benefits a lot from ordered queues, they fit
> >>> better in a pipeline with DRM for example so create a opt-in way for
> >>> drivers notify videobuf2 that the queue is unordered.
> >>>
> >>> Drivers don't need implement it if the queue is ordered.
> >>
> >> This is going to make user-space believe that *all* vb2 drivers use
> >> ordered queues by default, at least until non-ordered drivers catch up
> >> with this change. Wouldn't it be less dangerous to do the opposite
> >> (make queues non-ordered by default)?
> > 
> > The rational behind this decision was because most formats/drivers are
> > ordered so only a small amount of drivers need to changed. I think this
> > was proposed by Hans on the Media Summit.
> > 
> > I understand your concern. My question is how dangerous will it be. If
> > you are building a product you will make the changes in the driver if
> > they are not there yet, or if it is a distribution you'd never know
> > which driver/format you are using so you should be prepared for
> > everything.
> > 
> > AFAIK all Capture drivers are ordered and that is where I think fences
> > is most useful.
> 
> Right. What could be done is to mark all codec drivers as unordered initially
> ask the driver authors to verify this. All capture drivers using vb2 and not
> using REQUEUE are ordered.

That is a good way out.

> 
> One thing we haven't looked at is what to do with drivers that do not use vb2.
> Those won't support fences, but how will userspace know that fences are not
> supported? I'm not sure what the best method is for that.
> 
> I am leaning towards a new capability since this has to be advertised clearly.

The capability flag makes sense to me, I'll incorporate it as part of my
next patchset.

Gustavo