From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CF0835B65F; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 11:43:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770032601; cv=none; b=eEqIfDJn2iAZJxWQ8Hn3p8Q0wOsd5qSOTzznzsBJd7Pz9pYLjlfwFRe9oLDKtmeoULsN/cN+lrjM3MK4LybiElvcwYI1sP53XvQa9sQDd3jimZfvN7lPSdTp2RDcputMHoGivCfDFZY1PPLDNVYIV63VoAYmbsN9GCvTugI3nrE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770032601; c=relaxed/simple; bh=53IqFtmY5k6XcBZAWO6IXfkg/Zh/qfv2Y+ngXI7iML0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FQV8644KAMEfO5h/sfB1k/ld4GSZpH6bKBAOgFmDUzCDcRw72AQ6Z8lMPAsRYbsmGET3ZRPB7jUf1fXSc2KpU83B0+1V7r7Bsp7b3RdNjieNEJatfUYd9UAheEHtBAm0btokFFPC8SzDxDyM1amMLt3dg2m0pm9d4bvSt9pEhhw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=D+xMuwC6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="D+xMuwC6" Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (2001-14ba-703d-e500--2a1.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:703d:e500::2a1]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id E8578492; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 12:42:37 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1770032558; bh=53IqFtmY5k6XcBZAWO6IXfkg/Zh/qfv2Y+ngXI7iML0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=D+xMuwC68fdhryheH0mYSTqUq2R779LLpSrwlgONwfPMADRNVD1+Oa3juu7UBz+2/ 5r94tTK1SgtiGuKkwoHQFjqgrQRg2SVftCH7k1DW3qD+d/p4u2MmDHa+384FEmPmx2 +XombrNKVICX0fSwoZ7CYscQ4p/HBf2H+lz9uPFg= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 13:43:17 +0200 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Oleksandr Natalenko , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, jani.nikula@linux.intel.com, anisse@astier.eu, Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Hans Verkuil , Sakari Ailus , Jacopo Mondi , Ricardo Ribalda , open list Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] media: Virtual camera driver Message-ID: <20260202114317.GB4173464@killaraus> References: <20260201133342.335680-1-jarkko@kernel.org> <5073898.31r3eYUQgx@natalenko.name> <20260202001704.2419778a@foz.lan> <13939245.uLZWGnKmhe@natalenko.name> <20260202020214.2243acec@foz.lan> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 11:05:52AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 02:02:14AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > On Mon, 02 Feb 2026 00:25:37 +0100 Oleksandr Natalenko wrote: > > > > On pondělí 2. února 2026 0:17:20, středoevropský standardní čas Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > > No. At the machine with the camera, obs can read from a V4L2 input, > > > > > generate a mpeg TS stream, and listen to a UDP port (for instance). > > > > > > > > > > At the remote machine, you can just pass the URL to ffmpeg. > > > > > > > > I can't, I have to feed the stream into Firefox somehow for it to see the stream as a virtual webcam. > > > > > > Motioneye could be used on such scenario. It has a proper web > > > interface, allows multiple users to watch, has login control accepts > > > multiple cameras. > > > > When proposed workarounds move in the area of motion detection systems > > it feels like there was a competion who invents the most impractical > > solution for a practical real-world problem out in the wild. I'm also not quite sure how motioneye would be related. Please see my reply to Gergo in this mail thread for a proposed solution that is (in my opinion) not a workaround. > A trivial Google search shows that the scope of the issue, which is > also (on emphasis) a security issue, and net effect that is caused > of not addressing it properly. How is it a security issue ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart