Am 28.02.23 um 13:34 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann:
Hi Am 27.02.23 um 19:15 schrieb Rob Clark:On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 9:57 AM Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 2/27/23 20:38, Rob Clark wrote: ...+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_VIRTIO_GPU_KMS)) { + /* get display info */ + virtio_cread_le(vgdev->vdev, struct virtio_gpu_config, + num_scanouts, &num_scanouts); + vgdev->num_scanouts = min_t(uint32_t, num_scanouts, + VIRTIO_GPU_MAX_SCANOUTS); + if (!vgdev->num_scanouts) { + /*+ * Having an EDID but no scanouts is non-sensical,+ * but it is permitted to have no scanouts and no + * EDID (in which case DRIVER_MODESET and + * DRIVER_ATOMIC are not advertised) + */ + if (vgdev->has_edid) { + DRM_ERROR("num_scanouts is zero\n"); + ret = -EINVAL; + goto err_scanouts; + }+ dev->driver_features &= ~(DRIVER_MODESET | DRIVER_ATOMIC);If it's now configurable by host, why do we need the CONFIG_DRM_VIRTIO_GPU_KMS?Because a kernel config option makes it more obvious that modeset/atomic ioctls are blocked. Which makes it more obvious about where any potential security issues apply and where fixes need to get backported to. The config option is the only thing _I_ want, everything else is just a bonus to help other people's use-cases.I find this very vague. What's the security thread?And if the config option is useful, shouldn't it be DRM-wide? The modesetting ioctl calls are shared among all drivers.
For reference, here's an older discussion about render-only devices. https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20221011110437.15258-1-christian.koenig@xxxxxxx/
Best regards ThomasBR, -R
-- Thomas Zimmermann Graphics Driver Developer SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
