On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:24:14PM -0800, Volkin, Bradley D wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:35:38AM -0800, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > I think long-term we should even scan secure batches. We'd need to allow > > some registers which only the drm master (i.e. owner of the display > > hardware) is allowed to do, e.g. for scanline waits. But once we have that > > we should be able to port all current users of secure batches over to > > scanned batches and so enforce this everywhere by default. > > > > The other issue is that igt tests assume to be able to run some evil > > tests, so maybe we don't actually want this. > > Agreed. I thought we could handle this as a follow-up task once the basic stuff is > in place, particularly given that we'd want to modify at least some users to test. > I also wasn't sure if we would want the check to be root && master, as in the current > secure flag, or just master. So my plan to initially not parse secure batches might be shot. During further testing, I found that it looks like Ubuntu 13.10 ships with fdo bug 71328 out of the box (sna doesn't set the EXEC_SECURE flag when doing scanline waits). Sooo... If we parse all batches and allow extra commands/registers from the drm master, should that list just be the commands/registers used for scanline waits? Are there others you can think of? Brad _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
