From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org, jani.nikula@linux.intel.com,
anisse@astier.eu, oleksandr@natalenko.name,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@kernel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
Jacopo Mondi <jacopo.mondi@ideasonboard.com>,
Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] media: Virtual camera driver
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 03:36:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aYFRO1XdtEUkbSCg@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aYE84i2GT5ntqZsO@kernel.org>
On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 02:10:15AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 12:50:06AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Hi Jarkko,
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 10:44:21PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Already a quick Google survey backs strongly that OOT drivers (e.g.,
> > > v4l2loopback) are the defacto solution for streaming phone cameras in
> > > video conference calls, which puts confidential discussions at risk.
> >
> > As I think it was pointed out in review comments for v1, the reason behind
> > using v4l2loopback is the use of a downstream driver, which itself is a
> > source of a security risk. If I understand correctly, supporting this
> > (proprietary/downstream vendor drivers) would be the main use case this
> > driver serves? Should this downstream driver be upstreamed to alleviate the
> > security risks, the need for v4l2loopback or similar drivers presumably
> > disappears.
>
> My goal is not to proactively support proprietary drivers, and I don't
> know how to measure such incentive or risk, when it comes to video
> drivers.
>
> And besides there is e.g. FUSE.
>
> >
> > Another of the downsides of such proprietary/downstream solutions is they
> > can never be properly integrated into the Linux ecosystem so functionality
> > will remain spotty (limited to specific systems and specific releases of
> > specific distributions) at best.
> >
> > In other words, this driver appears to be orthogonal to solving either of
> > the above two problems the proprietary/downstream solutions have.
> >
> > From the Open Source libcamera based camera software stack point of view
> > there doesn't seem to be a need for v4l2loopback or another similar driver.
> > The two main reasons for this is that (1) there's no need for glueing
> > something separate together like this and (2) V4L2 isn't a great
> > application interface for cameras -- use libcamera or Pipewire instead.
>
> While I get this argument isolated, it does not match the observed
> reality, and does not provide tools to address the core issue. I
> will be in my grave before I've fixed the world like you are
> suggesting :-)
>
> Like, first off, where would I use libcamera or Pipewire? There's
> no well-defined target other than kernel in this problem.
>
> >
> > >
> > > It can be also claimed that there's enough OOT usage in the wild that
> > > possible security bugs could be considered as potential zerodays for the
> > > benefit of malicious actors.
> > >
> > > The situation has been stagnated for however many years, which is
> > > unsastainable situation, and it further factors potential security
> > > risks. Therefore, a driver is needed to address the popular use case.
> > >
> > > vcam is a DMA-BUF backed virtual camera driver capable of creating video
> > > capture devices to which data can be streamed through /dev/vcam after
> > > calling VCAM_IOC_CREATE. Frames are pushed with VCAM_IOC_QUEUE and recycled
> > > with VCAM_IOC_DEQUEUE. Zero-copy semantics are supported for shared DMA-BUF
> > > between capture and output.
> > >
> > > This enables efficient implementation of software, which can manage network
> > > video streams from phone cameras, and map those streams to video devices.
> >
> > I'd really try to avoid involving V4L2 in-kernel implementation when the
> > source of the video is network. V4L2 is meant to be used (when it comes to
> > video) for interfacing video related hardware such as cameras, ISPs and
> > codecs. There are limited number of video output related devices, too, but
> > network is something quite different from these.
>
> I'd look at the usage patterns in the field too. It is pretty obvious
> that there is a significant gap what users want and expect when it
> comes to this debate.
As for the patch itself, it is RFC i.e., not request for immediate
merge. I sent v2 quickly primarily to address the motivation part
properly. I'll phase this down a bit, and rework on issues in the uAPI I
observed (and remarked in a response to this patch) etc., and generally
give people some time to digest.
BR, Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-03 1:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-02 20:44 [RFC PATCH v2] media: Virtual camera driver Jarkko Sakkinen
2026-02-02 21:28 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2026-02-02 22:50 ` Sakari Ailus
2026-02-03 0:10 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2026-02-03 1:36 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2026-02-03 20:57 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-02-03 21:11 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2026-02-03 21:21 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-02-03 8:09 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2026-02-03 8:32 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2026-02-03 10:27 ` johannes.goede
2026-02-03 13:16 ` Jani Nikula
2026-02-03 21:09 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-02-03 13:20 ` Jani Nikula
2026-02-03 14:19 ` johannes.goede
2026-02-03 15:25 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2026-02-03 18:53 ` Jani Nikula
2026-02-03 19:07 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2026-02-03 19:15 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2026-02-03 21:22 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-02-03 21:40 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2026-02-03 21:18 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-02-03 17:56 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aYFRO1XdtEUkbSCg@kernel.org \
--to=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=anisse@astier.eu \
--cc=hverkuil@kernel.org \
--cc=jacopo.mondi@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
--cc=oleksandr@natalenko.name \
--cc=ribalda@chromium.org \
--cc=sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox