On 2019/05/27, Koenig, Christian wrote: > Am 27.05.19 um 15:26 schrieb Emil Velikov: > > On 2019/05/27, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:47:39AM +0000, Koenig, Christian wrote: > >>> Am 27.05.19 um 10:17 schrieb Emil Velikov: > >>>> From: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> Currently one can circumvent DRM_AUTH, when the ioctl is exposed via the > >>>> render node. A seemingly deliberate design decision. > >>>> > >>>> Hence we can drop the DRM_AUTH all together (details in follow-up patch) > >>>> yet not all userspace checks if it's authenticated, but instead uses > >>>> uncommon assumptions. > >>>> > >>>> After days of digging through git log and testing, only a single (ab)use > >>>> was spotted - the Mesa RADV driver, using the AMDGPU_INFO ioctl and > >>>> assuming that failure implies lack of authentication. > >>>> > >>>> Affected versions are: > >>>> - the whole 18.2.x series, which is EOL > >>>> - the whole 18.3.x series, which is EOL > >>>> - the 19.0.x series, prior to 19.0.4 > >>> Well you could have saved your time, cause this is still a NAK. > >>> > >>> For the record: I strongly think that we don't want to expose any render > >>> functionality on the primary node. > >>> > >>> To even go a step further I would say that at least on AMD hardware we > >>> should completely disable DRI2 for one of the next generations. > >>> > >>> As a follow up I would then completely disallow the DRM authentication > >>> for amdgpu, so that the command submission interface on the primary node > >>> can only be used by the display server. > >> So amdgpu is running in one direction, while everyone else is running in > >> the other direction? Please note that your patch to change i915 landed > >> already, so that ship is sailing (but we could ofc revert that back > >> again). > >> > >> Imo really not a great idea if we do a amdgpu vs. everyone else split > >> here. If we want to deprecate dri2/flink/rendering on primary nodes across > >> the stack, then that should be a stack wide decision, not an amdgpu one. > >> > > Cannot agree more - I would love to see drivers stay consistent. > > Yeah, completely agree to that. That's why I think we should not do this > at all and just let Intel fix it's userspace bugs :P > Pretty sure I mentioned it before - might have been too subtle: The problem is _neither_ Intel nor libva specific. > Anyway my concern is really that we should stop extending functionality > on the primary node. > > E.g. the render node is for use by the clients and the primary node for > mode setting and use by the display server only. > Fully agreed. I'm not extending anything really. If anything - code is removed from drivers and core :-) Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
