On Fri, 11 May 2012 20:09:19 -0300
Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni.dodo...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 05/11/2012 05:54 PM, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > @@ -1800,6 +1800,7 @@ struct drm_ioctl_desc i915_ioctls[] = {
> > DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_OVERLAY_ATTRS, intel_overlay_attrs,
> > DRM_MASTER|DRM_CONTROL_ALLOW|DRM_UNLOCKED),
> > DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_SET_SPRITE_COLORKEY, intel_sprite_set_colorkey,
> > DRM_MASTER|DRM_CONTROL_ALLOW|DRM_UNLOCKED),
> > DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GET_SPRITE_COLORKEY, intel_sprite_get_colorkey,
> > DRM_MASTER|DRM_CONTROL_ALLOW|DRM_UNLOCKED),
> > + DRM_IOCTL_DEF_DRV(I915_GEM_WAIT, i915_gem_wait_ioctl, DRM_UNLOCKED),
> > };
>
> I was just wondering (not directly related to this patch, but more
> thinking on the overall gem flow) - don't we want to use DRM_AUTH here?
I'd like to hear from others on this. I never really understand when to
use DRM_AUTH, and when not to. Given that BUSY ioctl uses DRM_AUTH, you
are probably right (and execbuffer too for that matter).
However from a security perspective, I don't really see why we need
DRM_AUTH for this, or BUSY, and OTOH, set domain doesn't have DRM_AUTH,
and the operation is quite similar, so I dunno.
At this point I think whatever is most consistent is the right answer.
--
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
