Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V4] drm/drm_vblank: Change EINVAL by the correct errno

From: Rodrigo Siqueira
Date: Wed Jun 26 2019 - 09:37:26 EST

Next message: Petr Mladek: "Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: Fix livepatch/ftrace module text permissions race"
Previous message: Alex Elder: "Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] net: introduce Qualcomm IPA driver"
In reply to: Daniel Vetter: "Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V4] drm/drm_vblank: Change EINVAL by the correct errno"
Next in thread: Daniel Vetter: "Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V4] drm/drm_vblank: Change EINVAL by the correct errno"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 4:53 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 4:00 AM Rodrigo Siqueira
> <rodrigosiqueiramelo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/19, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 09:48:56AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:07:50PM -0300, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote:
> > > > > For historical reason, the function drm_wait_vblank_ioctl always return
> > > > > -EINVAL if something gets wrong. This scenario limits the flexibility
> > > > > for the userspace make detailed verification of the problem and take
> > > > > some action. In particular, the validation of âif (!dev->irq_enabled)â
> > > > > in the drm_wait_vblank_ioctl is responsible for checking if the driver
> > > > > support vblank or not. If the driver does not support VBlank, the
> > > > > function drm_wait_vblank_ioctl returns EINVAL which does not represent
> > > > > the real issue; this patch changes this behavior by return EOPNOTSUPP.
> > > > > Additionally, some operations are unsupported by this function, and
> > > > > returns EINVAL; this patch also changes the return value to EOPNOTSUPP
> > > > > in this case. Lastly, the function drm_wait_vblank_ioctl is invoked by
> > > > > libdrm, which is used by many compositors; because of this, it is
> > > > > important to check if this change breaks any compositor. In this sense,
> > > > > the following projects were examined:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Drm-hwcomposer
> > > > > * Kwin
> > > > > * Sway
> > > > > * Wlroots
> > > > > * Wayland-core
> > > > > * Weston
> > > > > * Xorg (67 different drivers)
> > > > >
> > > > > For each repository the verification happened in three steps:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Update the main branch
> > > > > * Look for any occurrence "drmWaitVBlank" with the command:
> > > > > git grep -n "drmWaitVBlank"
> > > > > * Look in the git history of the project with the command:
> > > > > git log -SdrmWaitVBlank
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally, none of the above projects validate the use of EINVAL which
> > > > > make safe, at least for these projects, to change the return values.
> > > > >
> > > > > Change since V3:
> > > > > - Return EINVAL for _DRM_VBLANK_SIGNAL (Daniel)
> > > > >
> > > > > Change since V2:
> > > > > Daniel Vetter and Chris Wilson
> > > > > - Replace ENOTTY by EOPNOTSUPP
> > > > > - Return EINVAL if the parameters are wrong
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Apologies for the confusion on the last time around. btw if someone tells
> > > > you "r-b (or a-b) with these changes", then just apply the r-b/a-b tag
> > > > next time around. Otherwise people will re-review the same thing over and
> > > > over again.
> > >
> > > btw when resending patches it's good practice to add anyone who commented
> > > on it (or who commented on the igt test for the same patch and other way
> > > round) onto the explicit Cc: list of the patch. That way it's easier for
> > > them to follow the patch evolution and do a quick r-b once they're happy.
> >
> > Thanks for these valuable tips.
> > Do you think that is a good idea to resend this patch CC's everybody? Or
> > is it ok if I just apply it?
>
> Hm I thought I answered that on irc ... but just today I realized that
> we missed 2 ioctls. There's also drm_crtc_get_sequence_ioctl and
> drm_crtc_queue_sequence_ioctl which have the same dev->irq_enabled
> check and I think should be treated the same.

Hi,

I reexamined all the composers described in the commit message (latest
versions) to check if any project use and validate the return value
from drm_crtc_get_sequence_ioctl and drm_crtc_queue_sequence_ioctl. I
noticed that mesa and xserver use them. FWIU replace EINVAL by
EOPNOTSUPP is harmless for mesa project, however it is not the same
for xserver.

Take a look at line 189 and 238 of hw/xfree86/drivers/modesetting/vblank.c

* https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/blob/master/hw/xfree86/drivers/modesetting/vblank.c#L238
* https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/blob/master/hw/xfree86/drivers/modesetting/vblank.c#L189

A little bit below the above lines, you can see a validation like that:

if (ret != -1 || (errno != ENOTTY && errno != EINVAL))

In other words, if we change the EINVAL by EOPNOTSUPP
drm_crtc_[get|queue]_sequence_ioctl we could break xserver. I noticed
that Keith Packard introduced these ioctls to the kernel and also to
the xserver, I will prepare a new version and CC Keith. Should I do
another thing to notify xserver developers?

Thanks

> Can you pls resend with those addressed too? Then you can also resend
> with the cc's all added.
> -Daniel
>
> >
> > > If you don't do that then much bigger chances your patch gets ignored.
> > > -Daniel
> > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c | 2 +-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> > > > > index 603ab105125d..bed233361614 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
> > > > > @@ -1582,7 +1582,7 @@ int drm_wait_vblank_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> > > > > unsigned int flags, pipe, high_pipe;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!dev->irq_enabled)
> > > > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (vblwait->request.type & _DRM_VBLANK_SIGNAL)
> > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.21.0
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Daniel Vetter
> > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daniel Vetter
> > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> >
> > --
> > Rodrigo Siqueira
> > https://siqueira.tech
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

--

Rodrigo Siqueira
https://siqueira.tech

Next message: Petr Mladek: "Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: Fix livepatch/ftrace module text permissions race"
Previous message: Alex Elder: "Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] net: introduce Qualcomm IPA driver"
In reply to: Daniel Vetter: "Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V4] drm/drm_vblank: Change EINVAL by the correct errno"
Next in thread: Daniel Vetter: "Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V4] drm/drm_vblank: Change EINVAL by the correct errno"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]