Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:11:47AM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote: >> Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> >>> Overall I am starting getting concerned about proper isolation between >>> clients. Right now, if one client stops reading events and another one >>> issues grab then the first client will only get events that were >>> accumulated before grab tookm place. With the new shared buffer the >>> first client may get "grabbed" events if it stop for long enough for >>> buffer to wrap around. >> Doing some research, the semantics of ioctl have obviously been discussed >> before, and I believe this points to another such issue. When grabbing a device, >> are we guaranteeing that the device no longer sends events to other clients, or >> are we guaranteeing that other clients can no longer read the device? If the >> latter, clearing all client buffers in conjunction with a grab would be >> appropriate, and would solve this issue. > > > Yes, I think it would be acceptable approach. > >>> Do we really same that much memory here? We normally do not have that >>> many users connected to event devices at once... >> Ok, let's scratch this. Although I think the idea of multi-reader buffers is >> sound, it is obviously sufficiently incompatible with the current approach to >> produce distastefully complex patches. I will return with a new set which only >> fixes the buffer resize problem, and leaves the rest for later. >> > > Right, let's merge this and also MT slots and revisit this issue at some > later point. Sounds good. I just resent the main MT patches, adding some more Cc:s, and to make sure we both have the same version. :-) Regarding the ioctl stuff for MT slots, I did not send those again, I am not sure what to do with them. Thanks, Henrik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
