[PATCH 01/13] drm/amdgpu: introduce and honour DRM_FORCE_AUTH workaround

Emil Velikov emil.l.velikov at gmail.com
Fri Jun 14 15:53:25 UTC 2019

On 2019/06/14, Koenig, Christian wrote:
> Am 14.06.19 um 14:09 schrieb Emil Velikov:
> > On 2019/05/27, Emil Velikov wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> >
> > In the following, I would like to summarise and emphasize the need for
> > DRM_AUTH removal. I would kindly ask you to spend a couple of minutes
> > extra reading it.
> >
> >
> > Today DRM drivers* do not make any distinction between primary and
> > render node clients.
> That is actually not 100% correct. We have a special case where a DRM 
> master is allowed to change the priority of render node clients.
Can you provide a link? I cannot find that code.

> > Thus for a render capable driver, any premise of
> > separation, security or otherwise imposed via DRM_AUTH is a fallacy.
> Yeah, that's what I agree on. I just don't think that removing DRM_AUTH 
> now is the right direction to take.
Could have been clearer - I'm talking about DRM_AUTH | DRM_RENDER_ALLOW

That aside, can you propose an alternative solution that addresses this
and the second point just below?

> > Considering the examples of flaky or outright missing drmAuth in prime
> > open-source projects (mesa, kmscube, libva) we can reasonably assume
> > other projects exbibit the same problem.
> >
> > For these and/or other reasons, two DRM drivers have dropped DRM_AUTH
> > since day one.
> >
> > Since we are interested in providing consistent and predictable
> > behaviour to user-space, dropping DRM_AUTH seems to be the most
> > effective way forward.
> Well and what do you do with drivers which doesn't implement render nodes?
AFAICT there is a single non-DC driver which does not expose - QXL.
I would expect it runs on a rather customised stack.

Would be great to fix that, but ETIME and it's the only exception to the

> > Of course, I'd be more than happy to hear for any other way to achieve
> > the goal outlined.
> >
> > Based on the series, other maintainers agree with the idea/goal here.
> > Amdgpu not following the same pattern would compromise predictability
> > across drivers and complicate userspace, so I would kindly ask you to
> > reconsider.
> >
> > Alternatively, I see two ways to special case:
> >   - New flag annotating amdgpu/radeon - akin to the one proposed earlier
> >   - Check for amdgpu/radeon in core DRM
> I perfectly agree that I don't want any special handling for amdgpu/radeon.
> My key point is that with DRM_AUTH we created an authorization and 
> authentication mess in DRM which is functionality which doesn't belong 
> into the DRM subsystem in the first place.
Precisely and I've outlined below how to resolve this in the long run.

> > Now on your pain point - not allowing render iocts via the primary node,
> > and how this patch could make it harder to achieve that goal.
> >
> > While I love the idea, there are number of obstacles that prevent us
> > from doing so at this time:
> >   - Ensuring both old and new userspace does not regress
> Yeah, agree totally. That's why I said we should probably start doing 
> this for only for upcoming hardware generations.
That will side-step the regression issue, but will enforce driver
specific behaviour outlined before.

> >   - Drivers (QXL, others?) do not expose a render node
> Well isn't that is a rather big problem for the removal of DRM_AUTH in 
> general?
> E.g. at least QXL would then expose functionality on the primary node 
> without authentication.
With this series QXL remains functionally unchanged. I would love to fix
that as well yet ETIME as mentioned above.

> >   - We want to avoid driver specific behaviour
> >
> > The only way forward that I can see is:
> >   - Address QXL/others to expose render nodes
> >   - Add a Kconfig toggle to disable !KMS ioctls via the primary node
> >   - Jump-start ^^ with distribution X
> >   - Fix user-space fallouts
> >   - X months down the line, flip the Kconfig
> >   - In case of regressions - revert the KConfig, goto Fix user-space...
> Well that at least sounds like a plan :) Let's to this!
We're talking about months if not years until it comes to fruition. We
need something quicker.

That said, I'm quite happy to take the first stab, yet this is not a
replacement for this series.

> > That said, the proposal will not conflict with the DRM_AUTH removal. If
> > anything it is step 0.5 of the grand master plan.
> That's the point I strongly disagree on.
> By lowering the DRM_AUTH restriction you are encouraging userspace to 
> use the shortcut and use the primary node for rendering instead of 
> fixing the code and using the render node.
Have to disagree here. After working on the user-space side and fixing
issues in various projects I can honestly say that most user-space is
sane and developers _care_ about doing things correctly.

> So at the end of the day userspace will most likely completely drop 
> support for the render node, simply for the reason that it became 
> superfluous. You can just open up the primary node and get the same 
> functionality.
I think you're being overly pessimistic here. This is coming from a
person who is often closer to the pessimistic side of things.

As a middle ground how about we do the following:
 - Get this series as-is, alongside
 - picking the first three items from the grand master plan
   - happy to start a discussion about QXL
   - a patch for the Kconfig toggle, is coming in a few minutes
   - happy to prod my distribution of choice (Arch) and work with them

What do you think?


More information about the amd-gfx mailing list