linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] drm/aperture: Add param to disable conflicting framebuffers removal

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: <CAEg-Je8-sSSo-4t_FvqquonPJF7y=-zpQLLX5PjkhEKG-xop=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 24 Oct 2021 16:43:39 -0400
From:   Neal Gompa <ngompa13@...il.com>
To:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] drm/aperture: Add param to disable conflicting
 framebuffers removal

On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 4:40 PM Javier Martinez Canillas
<javierm@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Thomas,
>
> Thanks a lot for your feedback.
>
> On 10/22/21 21:05, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>
> > There's still the question of the semantics of this parameter. It's a
> > bit fuzzy.
> >
> > If you use 'disable_handover' (as you mentioned in another mail), it
> > would mean that only the handover itself is disabled. So if simpledrm is
> > not bound to the device, then a native driver should load. That would be
> > hard to implement with the current code base, where we have to take old
> > fbdev drivers into account.
> >
> > (And to be pedantic, we don't really do a handover of the device. We
> > hot-unplug the generic platform device, so that the driver for the
> > native device can operate the HW without interference.)
> >
> > Simpledrm only acquires an aperture, but never removes a driver. If
> > there is a driver already, simpledrm would fail. Only native drivers try > to remove drivers and would trigger the test. So your patch is more
> > something like 'disable_native_drivers'.
> >
> > I'd go with 'disable_native_drivers', or maybe 'disable_device_handover'
>
> That works for me and "drm.disable_native_drivers" is also what Neal meant
> with his "drm.noplatformdrv", but yours is much easier to remember / type.
>

I'm good with that too. :)

-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!