On Wed, 20 May 2020 16:19:00 +0200
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 3:20 PM Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:55 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >  
> > > Maybe we should add an explicit note that there's no guarantee about the
> > > new chardev minor this new device will get, it could both inherit the
> > > existing one (you can't open the old one anymore anyway) or get a new one?
> > >
> > > Or does userspace want a guarantee, i.e. as long as there's still a handle
> > > open kernel guarantees to not recycle the chardev minor (which is what we
> > > currently do). In that case better to add that to your list of guarantees
> > > above.  
> >
> > The are race conditions to consider too, e.g.
> >
> > - Compositor sends /dev/dri/card0 to a client
> > - card0 goes away
> > - Another device takes card0
> > - Client receives /dev/dri/card0 and then starts using it, but it's the
> >   wrong device  
> 
> Oh reminds me, what should we do about open() - that one will fail,
> the chardev is going away after all, not failing kinda doesn't make
> sense. And more tricky, about creating new leases?
> 
> I think reasonable semantics here would be that both of these "create
> a new open drm fd" operations can fail as soon as the device is
> unplugged. Userspace needs to be able to deal with that.

Hi,

yeah, we can make mmap read/write end result undefined, recycle char
minors like pids, and let new open()s and new leases fail. Pretty much
everything Daniel and Simon said make sense to me.

I'll spin a v2, but maybe next week.

What about the drm_ioctl() issue Andrey pointed out?


Thanks,
pq