Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-21 Thread Hans de Goede
Hi, On 01/20/2014 05:09 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:48:55PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 01/20/2014 03:18 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: -mga is probably also still relevant in some small number of cases. Don't we've a kms driver for those? Or you mean for mga

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-21 Thread Hans de Goede
Hi, On 01/20/2014 07:19 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, On 01/20/2014 03:18 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:08:01AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: So now it is time to start looking into some of

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-21 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
On Mo, 2014-01-20 at 15:58 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:18:22PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: We can probably kill -cirrus. qemu? (I know that people should be using QXL, but cirrus is still the default in plain qemu, and IMHO simpler and more secure.) qemu

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-21 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Tue, 21.01.14 09:26, Hans de Goede (hdego...@redhat.com) wrote: Probably. TBH I'm not that interested in the binary drivers I know the nvidia one is actually quite decent and it has a lot of users. So I don't want to break them, but beyond that my interest stops. I assume they are still

RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Hans de Goede
Hi All, As indicated here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/XorgWithoutRootRights I'm working on making the X server run as a regular user. I actually have this pretty much working. So now it is time to start looking into some of the corner cases, or rather at the elephant in the room.

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Peter Robinson
As indicated here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/XorgWithoutRootRights I'm working on making the X server run as a regular user. I actually have this pretty much working. So now it is time to start looking into some of the corner cases, or rather at the elephant in the room.

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Hans de Goede
Hi, On 01/20/2014 10:16 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: As indicated here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/XorgWithoutRootRights I'm working on making the X server run as a regular user. I actually have this pretty much working. So now it is time to start looking into some of the corner

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread drago01
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote: Hi All, As indicated here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/XorgWithoutRootRights I'm working on making the X server run as a regular user. I actually have this pretty much working. So now it is time to

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread drago01
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote: Hi All, As indicated here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/XorgWithoutRootRights I'm working on making the X server run as a regular user. I

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:08:01AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: So now it is time to start looking into some of the corner cases, or rather at the elephant in the room. What about non-kms drivers. We still have the vesa driver around as most prominent example, and this is useful for some

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Hans de Goede
Hi, On 01/20/2014 03:18 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:08:01AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: So now it is time to start looking into some of the corner cases, or rather at the elephant in the room. What about non-kms drivers. We still have the vesa driver around as most

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:18:22PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: We can probably kill -cirrus. qemu? (I know that people should be using QXL, but cirrus is still the default in plain qemu, and IMHO simpler and more secure.) Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:48:55PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 01/20/2014 03:18 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: -mga is probably also still relevant in some small number of cases. Don't we've a kms driver for those? Or you mean for mga cards not supported by the kms driver? The KMS

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:58:23PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:18:22PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: We can probably kill -cirrus. qemu? (I know that people should be using QXL, but cirrus is still the default in plain qemu, and IMHO simpler and more

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Peter Robinson
So now it is time to start looking into some of the corner cases, or rather at the elephant in the room. What about non-kms drivers. We still have the vesa driver around as most prominent example, and this is useful for some oddball cards and for cards which are too new. -mga is probably

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Adam Jackson
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 15:58 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:18:22PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: We can probably kill -cirrus. qemu? (I know that people should be using QXL, but cirrus is still the default in plain qemu, and IMHO simpler and more secure.) I

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: So now it is time to start looking into some of the corner cases, or rather at the elephant in the room. What about non-kms drivers. We still have the vesa driver around as most prominent example, and this is useful

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, On 01/20/2014 03:18 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:08:01AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: So now it is time to start looking into some of the corner cases, or rather at the elephant in the

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:19:30AM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: Does uvesafb actually work? I submitted a patch to the uvesafb kernel driver a few months back, and not only is the upstream link [1][2] to the v86d helper dead, but no one on the dri-devel list answered my request to see if

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:50:09PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: Isn't -cirrus still used by virt in a number of cases? I know -mga is used as a gpu chipset on a number of relatively new server platforms. What about -vmware? Virt can use the cirrus kms driver, the server matrox is supported by

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:19:30AM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: Does uvesafb actually work? I submitted a patch to the uvesafb kernel driver a few months back, and not only is the upstream link [1][2] to the v86d

Re: RFC: what to do with ums when the X server is not suid root ?

2014-01-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:54:22AM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: It'd be pretty straightforward to re-implement the helper if it's vanished entirely - we haven't retired libx86, and the rest is pretty trivial.