<div dir="ltr"> <div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 11:01 PM, Peter Hutterer <<a href="mailto:peter.hutterer@who-t.net" target="_blank">peter.hutterer@who-t.net</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 06:07:36PM +0000, Friedrich, Eugen (ADITG/ESB) wrote: > Hi, sorry for late replay > > Best regards > > Eugen Friedrich > Engineering Software Base (ADITG/ESB) > > Tel. +49 5121 49 6921 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter Hutterer [mailto:<a href="mailto:peter.hutterer@who-t.net">peter.hutterer@who-t.net</a>] > > Sent: Freitag, 6. April 2018 04:29 > > To: Friedrich, Eugen (ADITG/ESB) > > Cc: Matt Hoosier; Pekka Paalanen; wayland mailing list > > Subject: Re: [PATCH libinput 0/1] Initialization race against udev > > > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:20:51PM +0000, Friedrich, Eugen (ADITG/ESB) wrote: > > > Hi Peter > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > Eugen Friedrich > > > Engineering Software Base (ADITG/ESB) > > > > > > Tel. +49 5121 49 6921 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: wayland-devel [mailto:<a href="mailto:wayland-devel-">wayland-devel-</a> > > > > <a href="mailto:bounces@lists.freedesktop.org">bounces@lists.freedesktop.org</a>] On Behalf Of Peter Hutterer > > > > Sent: Donnerstag, 5. April 2018 06:27 > > > > To: Matt Hoosier > > > > Cc: Pekka Paalanen; wayland mailing list > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH libinput 0/1] Initialization race against udev > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 09:04:32AM -0500, Matt Hoosier wrote: > > > > > I encounter another "bad" behavior related to multiple firings of the UDev > > > > > 'add' event for a given input node. > > > > > > > > > > Typically on modest embedded systems, you do not want to run the > > > > exhaustive > > > > > 'udevadm trigger' during the main booting sequence. That causes hundreds > > > > or > > > > > thousands of UDev nodes to be crawled and processed by udevd all during > > > > the > > > > > first moments of userspace. These overall bulk of these nodes are pretty > > > > > much irrelevant to the use-case of the device. The time spent processing > > > > > these non-essential /sys devices can easily slow down the device's > > > > progress > > > > > toward starting a UI with basic touch support and loading drivers for the > > > > > handful of essential peripherals by 10 or 15 seconds. > > > > > > > > > > Instead, it works better to manually command the same UDev coldplugging > > > > > that would have been done by 'udevadm trigger', but for a very small > > > > > hand-picked set of devices rather than everything in /sys/devices. The time > > > > > savings are large. Of course, for completeness you do eventually have to > > > > > run 'udevadm trigger' so that the full set of hardware and kernel software > > > > > features are activated, but that can wait until after the main KPIs are > > > > > achieved. > > > > > > > > > > This scheme generally works just fine. Manually stimulating udevd to > > > > > coldplug the specific devices you need keeps everything general: > > > > > applications that find their hardware with UDev (such as with libinput or > > > > > Weston's DRM backend) all get to rely on their usual well-tested > > > > codepaths. > > > > > > > > > > But there is a snag: if a device like /dev/input/event0 has been > > > > > coldplugged once with the hands-on technique, then all the daemons that > > > > > care about it have already seen one UDev ACTION=add event for it. When > > > > the > > > > > late-running 'udevadm trigger' does its exhaustive sweep across > > > > > /sys/devices, this will cause a second ACTION=add event to be triggered > > > > for > > > > > /dev/input/event0. Currently (well, with libinput 1.1.1) this causes > > > > > libinput -- and consequently Weston -- to open a second filedescriptor > > > > > against /dev/input/event0, so that all input events are received in > > > > > duplicate. That confuses the compositor's and applications' input event > > > > > handling. > > > > > > > > > > Would it be tolerable to put a patch into either libinput or Weston to > > > > > guard against double-opening the same input device? I realize that the > > > > > scheme outlined above is probably technically in violation of the expected > > > > > UDev initialization scheme, but I'm not aware of any way to suppress > > > > udevd > > > > > from broadcasting the 'add' action to all udev clients even though the > > > > > device has already been coldplugged once. It seems to me at least plausible > > > > > that the Weston stack would benefit from guarding against getting into this > > > > > bad state from receiving unexpected UDev events. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think a weston patch is likely to help you here since libinput's > > > > udev handling is independent of weston. but tbh, I'd rather not do this in > > > > libinput either. as you write, you're not really behaving like udev is > > > > supposed to and once we start having to deal with that the floodgates are > > > > open for weird patches. The code for this should be relatively > > > > self-contained and easy-enough to maintain, please maintain that as a > > > > distribution-specific patch. > > > > > > [EF] but as I can see there is a race condition which can always occur in > > > any system if device will be added to the system after installation of the > > > udev monitor and before initializing already coldplugged devices. > > > Can we really just accept this and hope it will never happen? Or I'm missing > > something? > > > > yeah, that race condition could occur but the chances are ... very slim. > > By the time libinput starts up, all the built-in devices are already > > connected and what are the chances that you plug in a USB device at that > > precise ms? > > > > Now, if you feel like writing patches for this you're welcome if they're not > > too intrusive but one problem with those patches is likely that they're > > almost impossible to test for the udev backend (other than by manually > > pausing libinput at the right time and hoping). So unless you can come up > > with a solution for that too, I'd rather take my chances with the race > > condition than maintaining untestable code that may not work correctly in > > the one case where we need it :) > > [ef] I agree about the point of not testable code. > My plan was to modify the evdev_udev_handler function and add check > in the "add" action to verify if the device is already added. > For testing we can just trigger the "add" action manually to execute new > code path, should be exactly same as problem I would like to solve and > it should also solve the original point mentioned by Matt. > Can you agree on this? </div></div>you'll need to figure out a way how to automate this with the test suite. Should be possible running udevadm commands within the test but anything that requires a real "manually" isn't going to survive for long. Humans are lazy, machine testing is the way to go :) </blockquote><div> </div><div>If your question was aimed at me: I don't have a very strong opinion about tactics for this. My only goal was to make Weston resilient against duplicate UDev "device added" announcements. Whatever layer works best to short-circuit the construction of a second instance of touch-processing machinery is fine for me.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div><div class="h5"> > > > > especially if you're really still on 1.1.1 which came out in 2015... > > > > > > > > As for how it would work: device_added in src/udev-seat.c, you can get to > > > > the libinput_seat which has the device list (they're all struct > > > > evdev_device). You can get the fd from that and stat() it for the st_rdev > > > > or, simpler, add a field and strdup the device node into that struct and > > > > compare that. > > > > > > > > On second thought: I'm not sure how exactly you're handling the > > > > cold-plugging but is there a way you can add a udev rule that assigns > > > > LIBINPUT_IGNORE_DEVICE=1 to all input devices already handled? > > > > > > [EF] Could not get the exact idea! Should we set the attribute > > > LIBINPUT_IGNORE_DEVICE from the libinput code? > > > > Above you wrote: > > > Manually stimulating udevd to > > > coldplug the specific devices you need keeps everything general: > > > > I don't actually know what you mean by this, so I'm not sure what the udev > > behaviour is in this case. But if you're holding back the > > trigger anyway is that you can do whatever you do for the devices, then drop > > a udev rule in that sets LIBINPUT_IGNORE_DEVICE, then you run the udevadm > > trigger. Any device that is now handled by udev will have that property > > assigned and will thus be ignored, including all your duplicates. > > > > > Additional idea would be to use USEC_INITIALIZED time as unique identifier > > > in one boot cycle. > > > > Can you expand on how you think this would work? > > [ef] to find out if the device is already added or not I need some unique identifier > of the device, I thought to add the USEC_INITIALIZED member to each device > and if there is a device with the same USEC_INITIALIZED we will skip it. </div></div>oh right. Nice idea, seems a bit roundabout though :) The syspath of a device should be unique since the kernel keeps incrementing the inputXXXX number. We already use that for some conflict resolution between devices and it's readily accessible, so that should work well enough. Cheers, Peter <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"> > > > > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Pekka Paalanen <<a href="mailto:ppaalanen@gmail.com">ppaalanen@gmail.com</a>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > From: Pekka Paalanen <<a href="mailto:pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk">pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk</a>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > here is a patch for a race that was troubling a distribution for an > > > > > > embedded device. The original form of this patch has been in developer > > > > > > use for months now, and it seems to work there. For this version I have > > > > > > only changed the logging and fixed a leak. > > > > > > > > > > > > I originally discussed this issue on #wayland with Peter Hutterer on > > > > > > September 22, 2017. The discussion is quoted below to refresh our > > > > > > memories. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the distribution, Weston is started by systemd, the system is not > > > > > > very CPU-powerful, and lots of things are happening during the boot, > > > > > > which may all contribute to making this race possible to lose. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've only tested briefly on my work desktop to see that Weston still > > > > > > appears to find the input devices I expect. Obviously my desktop would > > > > > > never lose the race, because there are no input devices being hotplugged > > > > > > at the same time as Weston is starting up. > > > > > > > > > > > > The timer/idle callback idea is not implemented here, and neither is the > > > > > > double-add filtering. Let me know if you require those. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > pq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > < pq> whot, btw. we've looking into some fun libinput vs. udev > > > > > > device initialization race here. Apparently the device enumeration > > > > > > on libinput start-up may race with udev preparing devices at the > > > > > > same time, so the initial device enumeration for weston may see > > > > > > devices that have not had all their udev properties set yet. Do you > > > > > > recall ever fighting such issues? > > > > > > > > > > > > < pq> whot, another issue is that we may see a double-add of a > > > > > > device, first from the initial enumeration (with possibly missing > > > > > > properties) and then a second time as a hotplug event because > > > > > > libinput (correctly) listens for events before it enume existing > > > > > > devices. > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> pq: yes, I've seen this a lot with the test suite, but never > > > > > > in real life > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> I'm pretty sure in my case it's always a lingering udev > > > > > > device or some lingering properties > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> e.g. a tablet has some keyboard properties set because the > > > > > > kernel re-uses the event node > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> but that's triggered by the test suite using the path > > > > > > interface and there's bound to be a window where we can race. it > > > > > > shouldn't happen with the udev device, I think > > > > > > > > > > > > < pq> specifically, in the target device/system with touchscreens > > > > > > and weston, there are udev rules to set WL_OUTPUT on the device, but > > > > > > weston does not always see it. > > > > > > > > > > > > < pq> well, we use libinput via weston, and I don't think weston > > > > > > uses the path-based function. It's really the initial enumeration of > > > > > > input devices in libinput that has the issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> pq: a double-add is a bug, I can picture that happening with > > > > > > the current code. should be fixable > > > > > > > > > > > > * whot mumples something about syspath comparisons to filter that > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> mumbles, even. but it's late nough that I'm also open for > > > > > > mumpling > > > > > > > > > > > > < pq> whot, nice. Yeah, let's see if we have a patch to submit or > > > > > > just a bug report, it might take a while. > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> pq: for the missing properties I have no idea, but that > > > > > > would, if anything, be a systemd bug > > > > > > > > > > > > < pq> whot, really? What's udev_device_get_is_initialised() for > > > > > > then? Does it not apply to the initial device enumeration as done by > > > > > > libinput? > > > > > > > > > > > > < pq> whot, how does initial device enumeration work? Does it go the > > > > > > udev daemon or just look in sysfs on its own? > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> udev_device_get_is_initialized may help but it didn't with > > > > > > the test suite > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> but for your case, it might just because you're fighting a > > > > > > different race > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> should be easy enough to printf that to the log in your case > > > > > > and check if it's false when it fails > > > > > > > > > > > > < pq> whot, oh yeah, this didn't feel like a lingering device issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> initial enumeration: see udev_input_add_devices in > > > > > > src/udev-seat.c > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> basically: "get list of devices maching subsystem input, > > > > > > create udev device for each syspath in that list" > > > > > > > > > > > > < pq> whot, our current idea is to have the initial enumeration to > > > > > > ignore devices where udev_device_get_is_initialized() returns false, > > > > > > because presumably we will get the hotplug event later anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > < pq> that would avoid any busy-loop waiting > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> you could schedule a callback for that device's syspath > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> takes the whole "presumably" out of the question :) > > > > > > > > > > > > < pq> you mean like an idle task to re-check it? > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> yeah, that or a timer > > > > > > > > > > > > < whot> not sure we have idle sources in libinput right now, so a > > > > > > timer is your better option here > > > > > > > > > > > > < pq> whot, ok, sure. Thanks for the tip. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Nandor Han (1): > > > > > > udev: validate input devices during cold-plug > > > > > > > > > > > > src/udev-seat.c | 11 +++++++++++ > > > > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 2.16.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > wayland-devel mailing list > > > > > > <a href="mailto:wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a> > > > > > > <a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel</a> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > wayland-devel mailing list > > > > > <a href="mailto:wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a> > > > > > <a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel</a> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > wayland-devel mailing list > > > > <a href="mailto:wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a> > > > > <a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel</a> > > > > </div></div></blockquote></div> </div></div>