[PATCH 01/13] drm/amdgpu: introduce and honour DRM_FORCE_AUTH workaround
Christian.Koenig at amd.com
Fri Jun 21 12:13:54 UTC 2019
Am 21.06.19 um 13:58 schrieb Emil Velikov:
> On 2019/06/21, Koenig, Christian wrote:
>> Am 21.06.19 um 12:53 schrieb Emil Velikov:
>>> On 2019/06/21, Koenig, Christian wrote:
>>>> Well partially. That RADV broke is unfortunate, but we have done so many
>>>> customized userspace stuff both based on Mesa/DDX as well as closed
>>>> source components that it is just highly likely that we would break
>>>> something else as well.
>>> As an engineer I like to work with tangibles. The highly likely part is
>>> probable, but as mentioned multiple times the series allows for a _dead_
>>> trivial way to address any such problems.
>> Well to clarify my concern is that this won't be so trivial.
>> You implemented on workaround for one specific case and it is perfectly
>> possible that for other cases we would have to completely revert the
>> removal of DRM_AUTH.
> I would encourage you to take a closer look at my patch and point out
> how parcicular cases cannot be handled.
Well the last time I looked it only blocked the first call to the IOCTL.
If that is no longer the case then what is the actual difference to
>>>>> In particular, that user-space will "remove" render nodes.
>>>> Yes, that is my main concern here. You basically make render nodes
>>>> superfluously. That gives userspace all legitimization to also remove
>>>> support for them. That is not stupid or evil or whatever, userspace
>>>> would just follow the kernel design.
>>> Do you have an example of userspace doing such an extremely silly thing?
>>> It does seem like suspect you're a couple of steps beyond overcautious,
>>> perhaps rightfully so. Maybe you've seen some closed-source user-space
>>> going crazy? Or any other projects?
>> The key point is that I don't think this is silly or strange or crazy at
>> all. See the kernel defines the interface userspace can and should use.
>> When the kernel defines that everything will work with the primary node
>> it is perfectly valid for userspace to drop support for the render node.
>> I mean why should they keep this? Just because we tell them not to do this?
> From your experiense, do user-space developers care about doing (or
> generally do) the right thing?
No, not at all. Except for Marek and Michel they just take what works
and even Marek is often short-cutting on this.
> In either case, as pointed already the cat is out of the bag - has been
> for years, and if developers did behave as you describe them they would
> have "removed" render nodes already.
Currently render nodes are mandatory because they are needed for
E.g. we have a whole bunch of customers which do transcoding with that
on GPUs which don't even have a CRTC or even X running.
More information about the amd-gfx