From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] drm: Add Content Protection property Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:28:40 +0100 Message-ID: <20171205102840.GB12982@amd> References: <20171130030907.26848-1-seanpaul@chromium.org> <20171130030907.26848-2-seanpaul@chromium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1470175305==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171130030907.26848-2-seanpaul@chromium.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" To: Sean Paul Cc: David Airlie , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Daniel Vetter , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org --===============1470175305== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="K8nIJk4ghYZn606h" Content-Disposition: inline --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed 2017-11-29 22:08:56, Sean Paul wrote: > This patch adds a new optional connector property to allow userspace to e= nable > protection over the content it is displaying. This will typically be impl= emented > by the driver using HDCP. >=20 > The property is a tri-state with the following values: > - OFF: Self explanatory, no content protection > - DESIRED: Userspace requests that the driver enable protection > - ENABLED: Once the driver has authenticated the link, it sets this value >=20 > The driver is responsible for downgrading ENABLED to DESIRED if the link = becomes > unprotected. The driver should also maintain the desiredness of protection > across hotplug/dpms/suspend. Why would user of the machine want this to be something else than 'OFF'? If kernel implements this, will it mean hardware vendors will have to prevent user from updating kernel on machines they own? If this is merged, does it open kernel developers to DMCA threats if they try to change it? Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlomdNgACgkQMOfwapXb+vL3qwCcDcqWqudF2z1/Zq02sIazmCM1 uvIAoJOYcM6RIhyQOmsMM6k3ns01SbG0 =QWQx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h-- --===============1470175305== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KZHJpLWRldmVs IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApkcmktZGV2ZWxAbGlzdHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnCmh0dHBzOi8vbGlz dHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vZHJpLWRldmVsCg== --===============1470175305==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pavel@ucw.cz (Pavel Machek) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:28:40 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/6] drm: Add Content Protection property In-Reply-To: <20171130030907.26848-2-seanpaul@chromium.org> References: <20171130030907.26848-1-seanpaul@chromium.org> <20171130030907.26848-2-seanpaul@chromium.org> Message-ID: <20171205102840.GB12982@amd> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed 2017-11-29 22:08:56, Sean Paul wrote: > This patch adds a new optional connector property to allow userspace to enable > protection over the content it is displaying. This will typically be implemented > by the driver using HDCP. > > The property is a tri-state with the following values: > - OFF: Self explanatory, no content protection > - DESIRED: Userspace requests that the driver enable protection > - ENABLED: Once the driver has authenticated the link, it sets this value > > The driver is responsible for downgrading ENABLED to DESIRED if the link becomes > unprotected. The driver should also maintain the desiredness of protection > across hotplug/dpms/suspend. Why would user of the machine want this to be something else than 'OFF'? If kernel implements this, will it mean hardware vendors will have to prevent user from updating kernel on machines they own? If this is merged, does it open kernel developers to DMCA threats if they try to change it? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753390AbdLEK2q (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Dec 2017 05:28:46 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:54538 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753205AbdLEK2m (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Dec 2017 05:28:42 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:28:40 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Sean Paul Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Daniel Vetter , Jani Nikula , Gustavo Padovan , David Airlie , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] drm: Add Content Protection property Message-ID: <20171205102840.GB12982@amd> References: <20171130030907.26848-1-seanpaul@chromium.org> <20171130030907.26848-2-seanpaul@chromium.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="K8nIJk4ghYZn606h" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171130030907.26848-2-seanpaul@chromium.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed 2017-11-29 22:08:56, Sean Paul wrote: > This patch adds a new optional connector property to allow userspace to e= nable > protection over the content it is displaying. This will typically be impl= emented > by the driver using HDCP. >=20 > The property is a tri-state with the following values: > - OFF: Self explanatory, no content protection > - DESIRED: Userspace requests that the driver enable protection > - ENABLED: Once the driver has authenticated the link, it sets this value >=20 > The driver is responsible for downgrading ENABLED to DESIRED if the link = becomes > unprotected. The driver should also maintain the desiredness of protection > across hotplug/dpms/suspend. Why would user of the machine want this to be something else than 'OFF'? If kernel implements this, will it mean hardware vendors will have to prevent user from updating kernel on machines they own? If this is merged, does it open kernel developers to DMCA threats if they try to change it? Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlomdNgACgkQMOfwapXb+vL3qwCcDcqWqudF2z1/Zq02sIazmCM1 uvIAoJOYcM6RIhyQOmsMM6k3ns01SbG0 =QWQx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h--