linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] drm: Expand max DRM device number to full MINORBITS

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]

Date:   Tue, 8 Aug 2023 11:04:09 -0400
From:   James Zhu <jamesz@....com>
To:     Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Simon Ser <contact@...rsion.fr>
Cc:     Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@...el.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@...nel.org>,
        James Zhu <James.Zhu@....com>,
        Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@...labora.com>,
        Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] drm: Expand max DRM device number to full
 MINORBITS

I would like if these kernel patches are accepted by everyone, If yes, 
when they can be upstream.

I have a MR for libdrm to support drm nodes type up to 2^MINORBITS  
nodes which can work with these patches,

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/merge_requests/305

Thanks!

James

On 2023-08-08 09:55, Christian König wrote:
> Am 28.07.23 um 16:22 schrieb Simon Ser:
>> On Thursday, July 27th, 2023 at 14:01, Christian König 
>> <christian.koenig@....com> wrote:
>>
>>>> We do need patches to stop trying to infer the node type from the 
>>>> minor
>>>> in libdrm, though. Emil has suggested using sysfs, which we already do
>>>> in a few places in libdrm.
>>> That sounds like a really good idea to me as well.
>>>
>>> But what do we do with DRM_MAX_MINOR? Change it or keep it and say apps
>>> should use drmGetDevices2() like Emil suggested?
>> DRM_MAX_MINOR has been bumped to 64 now.
>>
>> With the new minor allocation scheme, DRM_MAX_MINOR is meaningless
>> because there is no "max minor per type" concept anymore: the minor no
>> longer contains the type.
>>
>> So I'd suggest leaving it as-is (so that old apps still continue to
>> work on systems with < 64 devices like they do today) and mark it as
>> deprecated.
>
> Sounds like a plan to me.
>
> Regards,
> Christian.