On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 03:41:19PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 25-Nov-24 2:14 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 01:01:14PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> On 18-Nov-24 5:47 PM, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > >>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 at 16:43, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>>> On 15-Nov-24 9:20 AM, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 at 00:06, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > <snip> > > >>>>>> Is there any ACPI- or WMI-provided information that could assist with > >>>>>> associating a privacy GPIO with a camera ? > >> > >> I just realized I did not answer this question from Laurent > >> in my previous reply. > >> > >> No unfortunately there is no ACPI- or WMI-provided information that > >> could assist with associating ACPI/WMI camera privacy controls with > >> a specific camera. Note that these are typically not exposed as a GPIO, > >> but rather as some vendor firmware interface. > >> > >> Thinking more about this I'm starting to believe more and more > >> that the privacy-control stuff should be handled by libcamera > >> and then specifically by the pipeline-handler, with some helper > >> code to share functionality where possible. > >> > >> E.g. on IPU6 equipped Windows laptops there may be some ACPI/WMI > >> driver which provides a /dev/input/event# SW_CAMERA_LENS_COVER node. > > > > Using an event device means that the user would need permissions to > > access it. Would distributions be able to tell the device apart from > > other event devices such as mouse/keyboard, where a logged user may not > > have permission to access all event devices in a multi-seat system ? > > input events modaliases contain a lot of info, including what sort > of events they report, e.g. : > > [hans@shalem uvc]$ cat /sys/class/input/input36/modalias > input:b0003v046Dp405Ee0111-e0,1,2,3,4,11,14,k71,72,73,74,75,77,78,79,7A,7B,7C,7D,7E,7F,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,8A,8B,8C,8E,8F,90,96,98,9B,9C,9E,9F,A1,A3,A4,A5,A6,A7,A8,A9,AB,AC,AD,AE,B0,B1,B2,B3,B4,B5,B6,B7,B8,B9,BA,BB,BC,BD,BE,BF,C0,C1,C2,CC,CE,CF,D0,D1,D2,D4,D8,D9,DB,DF,E0,E1,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,EA,EB,F0,F1,F4,100,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,11A,11B,11C,11D,11E,11F,161,162,166,16A,16E,172,174,176,177,178,179,17A,17B,17C,17D,17F,180,182,183,185,188,189,18C,18D,18E,18F,190,191,192,193,195,197,198,199,19A,19C,1A0,1A1,1A2,1A3,1A4,1A5,1A6,1A7,1A8,1A9,1AA,1AB,1AC,1AD,1AE,1AF,1B0,1B1,1B7,1BA,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,24A,24B,24C,24D,250,251,260,261,262,263,264,265,r0,1,6,8,B,C,a20,m4,l0,1,2,3,4,sfw > > So I believe that we can create a udev rule which matches on input > devices with SW_CAMERA_LENS_COVER functionality and set a uaccess > tag on those just like it is done for /dev/video# nodes. > > Or we can just use a specific input-device-name (sub) string > and match on that. > > This may require using a separate input_device with just > the SW_CAMERA_LENS_COVER functionality in some of the laptop > ACPI / WMI drivers, but that is an acceptable compromise IMHO. As long as it's doable I'm OK with it. > (we don't want to report privacy sensitive input events on > these nodes to avoid keylogging). > > > Would compositors be able to ignore the device to let libcamera handle > > it ? > > input devices can be opened multiple times and we want the compositor > to also open it to show camera on/off OSD icons / messages. I'm not sure we want that though, as the event should be associated with a particular camera in messages. It would be better if it still went through libcamera and pipewire. > If opened multiple times all listeners will get the events. > > >>>>>> We could include the evdev in the MC graph. That will of course only be > >>>>>> possible if the kernel knows about that association in the first place. > >>>>>> At least the 1st category of devices would benefit from this. > >>>> > >>>> Yes I was thinking about adding a link to the MC graph for this too. > >>>> > >>>> Ricardo I notice that in this v3 series you still create a v4l2-subdev > >>>> for the GPIO handling and then add an ancillary link for the GPIO subdev > >>>> to the mc-graph. But I'm not sure how that is helpful. Userspace would > >>>> still need to do parent matching, but then match the evdev parent to > >>>> the subdev after getting the subdev from the mc. In that case it might > >>>> as well look at the physical (USB-interface) parent of the MC/video > >>>> node and do parent matching on that avoiding the need to go through > >>>> the MC at all. > >>>> > >>>> I think using the MC could still be useful by adding a new type of > >>>> ancillary link to the MC API which provides a file-path as info to > >>>> userspace rather then a mc-link and then just directly provide > >>>> the /dev/input/event# path through this new API? > > > > I don't think we need that. MC can model any type of entity and report > > the device major:minor. That plus ancillary links should give us most of > > what we need, the only required addition should be a new MC entity > > function. > > Ah interesting yes that should work nicely. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
