linux-kernel - Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH 1/3] drm/qxl: allow both PRIV and VRAM placement for QXL_GEM_DOMAIN

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: <20181206113416.yydgi7ro47vwgf2d@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:34:16 +0100
From:   Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To:     Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@...hat.com>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        "open list:DRM DRIVER FOR QXL VIRTUAL GPU" 
        <spice-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DRM DRIVER FOR QXL VIRTUAL GPU" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH 1/3] drm/qxl: allow both PRIV and VRAM
 placement for QXL_GEM_DOMAIN_SURFACE

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 05:55:58AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> 
> > qxl surfaces (used for framebuffers and gem objects) can live in both
> > VRAM and PRIV ttm domains.  Update placement setup to include both.  Put
> > PRIV first in the list so it is preferred, so VRAM will have more room
> > for objects which must be allocated there.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
> 
> I remember these kind of changes in the past made migration
> fails. I proposed similar patches years ago and they were rejected
> for these reasons.

Pointer?

> Why now they are safe?

Well, you have to be careful what object you are allocating.  Surfaces
can be in both PRIV and VRAM.  Everything else (qxl commands, monitors
config, ...) must be in VRAM.

> Looks like we are improving QXL, so that means we are actively working
> on it.

Well, I'm just trying make qxl behave better with wayland.

> Should we not then thinking about moving feature in the proper
> places (like spice-server for atomic mode setting instead of implementin
> work around) ??

Main advantage is that it doesn't need qxl device changes, so it works
on old hosts too.  But, yes, we can consider to also modernize spice
protocol and qxl device.

cheers,
  Gerd