Hi Rick, AFAIK it's only Windows, but currently reaching out to see if it's different for our distributors in Europe.
Matt On Monday, March 24, 2025 at 10:38:19 AM UTC-7 Rick Byers wrote: > Thanks for chiming in Matt. Is the scenario you described Windows-only (in > which case we should be good with WARP), or also Linux? > > Rick > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 1:22 PM Matt George <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Very happy to hear about exploring the use of WARP on windows. >> >> Just wanted to chime in that from the Esri perspective, we also have a >> large number of users accessing our maps SDK from VMs without a GPU. This >> is done for security reasons, & not uncommon for public sector clients. We >> have a special codepath where when we detect software emulation is being >> used, we only render every X frames & then use css transforms in-between. >> This is fairly usable, though of course it's a much worse experience than >> having a GPU. >> > On Tuesday, March 11, 2025 at 1:11:42 AM UTC-7 Ashley Gullen wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the update David - that sounds like a much less disruptive >>> approach than removing it completely. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 at 19:26, David Adrian <dad...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> To cover the testing use case, we have provided a CLI flag to enable >>>> SwiftShader. This has been in the release notes since November. If this is >>>> insufficient, we could add an enterprise policy. >>>> >>>> However, rather than attempt a straight removal, we are going to take a >>>> multi-pronged approach to attempt to simultaneously reduce the situations >>>> where SwiftShader is available, while maintaining compatibility with >>>> devices that require it due to the GPU blocklist. >>>> >>>> - SwiftShader is already unused on many Mac clients, since it does >>>> not support ARM. We will run an experiment where we fully remove it on >>>> Mac, >>>> where usage is much smaller. We expect this will be ~fine. >>>> - Similarly, we will try the same on Linux, although this may not >>>> go as well, as there are not a large number of ARM Linux clients. >>>> - We will experiment with removing the automatic fallback to >>>> SwiftShader after 3 OOMs, limiting it to just the devices without a GPU >>>> or >>>> on the GPU blocklist. This should reduce the attack surface across the >>>> board, as attackers would be unable to arbitrarily cause SwiftShader to >>>> be >>>> used. In conjunction with this, we'll see if we can leverage Warp on >>>> Windows. >>>> >>>> If we can get to a state where SwiftShader is off by default on Mac and >>>> Linux, and replaced with Warp on Windows aside from the CLI flag, and the >>>> fallback is not triggerable by an attacker on systems with a "normal" GPU, >>>> we'll be in much better shape from a security standpoint. >>>> >>>> We will update this thread with the progress and results of these >>>> experiments as they roll out. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 2:27 PM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 that providing temporary enterprise policy exceptions is standard >>>>> practice <https://www.chromium.org/developers/enterprise-changes/> >>>>> for breaking changes that we predict may have enterprise impact. >>>>> >>>>> Rick >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 2:24 PM Erik Anderson <erik.a...@microsoft.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Geoff, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My suggestion re: a policy was not to have one that is supported >>>>>> indefinitely. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Many high-risk deprecations have had a policy lasting for, I believe, >>>>>> as little as 3 major version releases. Having such a thing helps >>>>>> mitigate >>>>>> the concern that the risk analysis was way off (which could then mean >>>>>> needing to do a stable respin if your risk analysis was off). If a >>>>>> policy >>>>>> is available, impacted enterprises can quickly self-remediate, report >>>>>> what >>>>>> broke once you flip over the default, and have a little bit more of a >>>>>> window to plan mitigations tied to the removal of the policy (since >>>>>> they’d >>>>>> now be aware of what broke and why). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Erik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* Ken Russell <k...@chromium.org> >>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 3, 2025 10:39 AM >>>>>> *To:* Ashley Gullen <ash...@scirra.com> >>>>>> *Cc:* Geoff Lang <geof...@google.com>; Erik Anderson < >>>>>> erik.a...@microsoft.com>; Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org>; David >>>>>> Adrian <dad...@google.com>; blink-dev <blin...@chromium.org>; >>>>>> geof...@chromium.org <geof...@chromium.org> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Remove: >>>>>> SwiftShader Fallback >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's feasible, but a significant amount of engineering work that our >>>>>> (Chrome Graphics) team would not be able to prioritize versus other >>>>>> current >>>>>> work that would impact a larger user base. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -Ken >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 9:45 AM 'Ashley Gullen' via blink-dev < >>>>>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it feasible to have SwiftShader (or WARP) run in its own process >>>>>> with a stronger sandbox? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 at 15:25, Geoff Lang <geof...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey Erik, Ashley, Rick, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to be clear that I think having high WebGL availability is a >>>>>> good thing. I don't think that users with software WebGL have a great >>>>>> experience but it's likely better than no availability, at least for >>>>>> drawing static things. What pushes this over the line and warrants this >>>>>> discussion is that JITing code in the GPU process is a huge >>>>>> vulnerability >>>>>> and is a rapidly increasing attack target. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We're investigating WARP as an alternative on Windows. You are right >>>>>> that a large portion of the SwiftShader fallback is on machines with no >>>>>> GPUs (headless or VMs). There are just many unknowns about the quality >>>>>> and >>>>>> security of WARP, it will take a while to be confident in such a change >>>>>> and >>>>>> it still does not resolve the issue of JITing code in the weakly >>>>>> sandboxed >>>>>> GPU process. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding corporate policy, I'd much rather have these users fall >>>>>> back in the same way as everyone else and work towards lowering the >>>>>> number >>>>>> of users in this position. It would mean supporting and testing a >>>>>> feature >>>>>> only used by enterprise users when we have no visibility into crashes, >>>>>> bugs >>>>>> or vulnerabilities that they face. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We're also disabling software fallback due to a crashes in the GPU >>>>>> driver (as opposed to blocklisted GPU). Right now any user can fairly >>>>>> easily trigger a GPU crash and fall back to software WebGL which opens >>>>>> up >>>>>> vulnerabilities to all users instead of the 2.7%. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Geoff >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 3:28 PM Erik Anderson < >>>>>> erik.a...@microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi David, >>>>>> >>>>>> The initial message states that SwiftShader primarily covers older >>>>>> Windows devices. Beyond those, there are a non-trivial set of enterprise >>>>>> users that use thin clients to connect to a remote Windows device which >>>>>> is >>>>>> often running in a VM without access to a physical GPU. >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, this applies to the Microsoft Dev Box offering ( >>>>>> https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/dev-box/). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately, enterprise clients often turn off telemetry. So, I >>>>>> would assume any UMA-derived metrics to be undercounting the population. >>>>>> >>>>>> It’s likely there are certain line-of-business and/or >>>>>> consumer-oriented sites that have a hard dependency on WebGL to be fully >>>>>> functional. >>>>>> >>>>>> Have you considered, on Windows, targeting WARP ( >>>>>> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/direct3darticles/directx-warp) >>>>>> >>>>>> instead? I don’t know if there are other viable alternatives on other >>>>>> OSes, >>>>>> but if the primary impacted clients are Windows perhaps that would be a >>>>>> sufficient mitigation. >>>>>> >>>>>> To help enterprise customers reason about how much this is going to >>>>>> impact them, it would be helpful to have an enterprise policy to control >>>>>> this. This is a common pattern for potentially high-impact changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> In its initial phase, the policy would enable motivated enterprises >>>>>> to forcibly disable SwiftShader as a scream test. And after you switch >>>>>> over >>>>>> the default, it could enable enterprises caught unaware to have some >>>>>> additional window of time to plan mitigations (by re-enabling it via >>>>>> policy) before you proceed with fully deprecating support and remove the >>>>>> policy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you comment on if you plan to add such a policy or, if not, why >>>>>> not? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* 'Ashley Gullen' via blink-dev <blin...@chromium.org> >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2025 4:14 AM >>>>>> *To:* Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> >>>>>> *Cc:* David Adrian <dad...@google.com>; blink-dev < >>>>>> blin...@chromium.org>; geof...@chromium.org <geof...@chromium.org> >>>>>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Remove: SwiftShader >>>>>> Fallback >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the response Rick, I agree with much of what you've said >>>>>> and I think your views and suggested workarounds are all generally >>>>>> reasonable. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I just realised I previously responded to this thread but only >>>>>> replied to David - for transparency I've copied my previous response >>>>>> below. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I can confirm all content made with Construct since about 2018 >>>>>> requires WebGL to work and will show an error message if WebGL is >>>>>> unavailable. I've included a screenshot of the message Construct content >>>>>> published to the web will display when WebGL is not supported, saying >>>>>> "Software update needed", since that has usually been the best advice in >>>>>> that situation in the past. As my previous message says we long ago >>>>>> removed >>>>>> any other fallback and are now likely too dependent on WebGL to feasibly >>>>>> reimplement a canvas2d fallback. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Some other thoughts about workarounds/mitigations: >>>>>> >>>>>> - A swiftshader WASM module would at least give us a workaround, >>>>>> but if that was something like a ~10 MB+ module it would be a very >>>>>> high >>>>>> download overhead which we'd be obligated to include in every >>>>>> Construct >>>>>> export for compatibility >>>>>> - Swiftshader could be removed from insecure origins with little >>>>>> impact to us, and using a permission policy for cross-site iframes >>>>>> should >>>>>> be straightforward to work with >>>>>> - If it helps reduce the attack surface, we could live with >>>>>> SwiftShader support for WebGL 1 only (no WebGL 2) with minimum >>>>>> capabilities >>>>>> (no extensions). >>>>>> - A permission prompt to the user is not ideal but better than >>>>>> nothing, and I imagine it would be tricky to explain to a normal web >>>>>> user >>>>>> though the prompt message (and makes obtaining a WebGL context >>>>>> async...) >>>>>> - Regarding getting WebGL to work on more devices, as I mentioned >>>>>> in my previous message, reviewing the GPU blocklist to re-enable >>>>>> WebGL for >>>>>> older devices if drivers have been updated or workarounds for issues >>>>>> can be >>>>>> found would help reduce the number of devices subject to SwiftShader. >>>>>> Being >>>>>> able to enable at least WebGL 1 will still help with Construct >>>>>> content. >>>>>> - If a software fallback can be securely implemented for WebGPU, >>>>>> Construct has a WebGPU renderer too now so that would give us a >>>>>> workaround >>>>>> (and potentially for any other WebGL content - AFAIK many widely used >>>>>> libraries like three.js now either support WebGPU or are working on >>>>>> it) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the consideration all. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Copy of my previous message: >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, thanks for the information. I just want to point out that even >>>>>> stopping WebGL content for only 2.7% of users is still potentially very >>>>>> disruptive. Consider a web game on Poki that requires WebGL and gets a >>>>>> million players. With this change, now 27,000 users will see a "WebGL >>>>>> not >>>>>> supported" error message. That's then potentially a huge number of new >>>>>> support requests to deal with. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > Can you share the number for Construct about what percentage of >>>>>> your users are using the SwiftShader fallback? Again, our numbers >>>>>> indicate >>>>>> that these are primarily older Windows workstations. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For the Construct editor itself, it is around 3%, so that seems in >>>>>> line. But the key point here is that Construct is middleware: it is a >>>>>> tool >>>>>> our users develop web games in and then publish independently of us. It >>>>>> is >>>>>> much more important that WebGL works for players of those games than it >>>>>> does for Construct itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Lots of people use older Windows workstations. We've had issues >>>>>> before where for example a graphics driver bug affecting WebGL 1 caused >>>>>> a >>>>>> great deal of trouble in a South American market, even though I suspect >>>>>> it >>>>>> only affected a small percentage of devices - see >>>>>> https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40941645 which was never >>>>>> resolved. There are probably places in the world where there are large >>>>>> numbers of people using older Windows workstations. I fear that pulling >>>>>> WebGL support from those devices may result in much higher numbers of >>>>>> unsupported users, and many more support requests, in the specific >>>>>> markets >>>>>> where such devices are common. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there anything that can be done to mitigate this change? Given >>>>>> SwiftShader allowed WebGL to be considered ubiquitous for many years, >>>>>> engines like Construct long ago removed any fallback for systems that do >>>>>> not support WebGL; we moved forward assuming we could rely on WebGL, and >>>>>> so >>>>>> now it's probably infeasible to bring back any fallback as we have too >>>>>> many >>>>>> key features that fundamentally require WebGL. Could SwiftShader be >>>>>> adapted >>>>>> to not use JIT? Could some other fallback be found? Could the GPU >>>>>> blocklist >>>>>> be revised to enable WebGL on as many older devices as possible? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the number of affected users should be <1% to minimise the >>>>>> impact from such a change. At web scale 2.7% is still a lot. Perhaps >>>>>> with >>>>>> revising the GPU blocklist and adding more workarounds this is feasible. >>>>>> I >>>>>> fear if this goes ahead without any mitigation, it will cause a great >>>>>> deal >>>>>> of trouble and is exactly the kind of thing sceptics of the web will >>>>>> bring >>>>>> up to say that web technology sucks, browsers can't be trusted, and >>>>>> people >>>>>> should just develop desktop games instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 22:31, Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry for the delay from API owners, as discussed on chat the >>>>>> chromestatus entry wasn't set up properly to request API owner review >>>>>> (now >>>>>> fixed). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a tricky one indeed (thanks for your input Ashley!). It looks >>>>>> like >>>>>> <https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4026> >>>>>> WebGL is used on about 20% of page loads, so 2.7% of that is ~0.5% of >>>>>> page >>>>>> loads which is very high risk according to our rules of thumb >>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpSpNJ96U8trhNkfV0v9fk/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.mqfkui78vo5z> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course that's an upper-bound, how many will have a fallback? One >>>>>> option would be to collect some UKM data for SwiftShader usage and >>>>>> review a >>>>>> random ~50 sites to observe the user experience in practice. That could >>>>>> give us a better sense of what the real user impact would likely be. Or >>>>>> Maybe Ashley can give us some examples of some web games just to confirm >>>>>> they indeed go from being playable to unplayable without swiftshader on >>>>>> some specific devices? David, do you have a device yourself you can test >>>>>> with that doesn't support GPU WebGL? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regardless, unless sites have been really good about almost always >>>>>> falling back somehow, I suspect we'll find that there's enough end-user >>>>>> impact to make this a high-risk change (but I could be convinced >>>>>> otherwise >>>>>> such as via a thorough UKM analysis). In which case then we could start >>>>>> working through our playbook for a phased plan for risky breaking >>>>>> changes. >>>>>> Not unlike what we did for flash removal >>>>>> <https://www.chromium.org/flash-roadmap/>, or WebSQL >>>>>> <https://developer.chrome.com/blog/deprecating-web-sql> (both big >>>>>> security benefit but big web compat risk). For example: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Explore whether we can build swiftshader into a wasm module >>>>>> that sites can use as a (probably even slower) fallback themselves. >>>>>> This >>>>>> turned out to be the key to making WebSQL deprecation tractable. In >>>>>> general >>>>>> our policy >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpSpNJ96U8trhNkfV0v9fk/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.x5bhg5grhfeo> >>>>>> >>>>>> is that we don't take functionality away that developers can't >>>>>> replace with >>>>>> some other substitute except in pretty extreme circumstances. >>>>>> - Prompt the user on whether or not to enable it per-origin (like >>>>>> a permission) >>>>>> - Put 3p usage behind a permission policy so the top-level site >>>>>> has to opt-in to allow 3p iframes to use swiftshader >>>>>> - Rely on some heuristics, (perhaps crowd-sourced signals) to try >>>>>> to find a sweet spot in the safety vs. functionality tradeoff space. >>>>>> We did >>>>>> this for flash initially with things like blocking it for very small >>>>>> canvases. >>>>>> - Anything we can do to make WebGL work on a larger set of >>>>>> devices? >>>>>> - Probably lots of other ideas that aren't occurring to me right >>>>>> now, more examples in bit.ly/blink.compat. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other side of the equation, API owners can be convinced to >>>>>> accept more compat risk the more significant the security benefits are. >>>>>> Are >>>>>> there more details you can share? Such as: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Are we confident that an attacker can only trigger swiftshader >>>>>> on somewhere around 3% of users (vs. some knob which can force it to >>>>>> be >>>>>> used on a larger fraction)? To what extent do we have reason to >>>>>> believe >>>>>> that the vulnerable population size is large enough to be a plausible >>>>>> target for attackers? Is there anything we can do to make the >>>>>> vulnerable >>>>>> user base more reliably contained? >>>>>> - How does swiftshader compare to other areas in terms of the >>>>>> number of vulnerabilities we've found in practice? Are there any >>>>>> reports of >>>>>> ITW exploits of it? It looks like >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://chrome-commit-tracker.arthursonzogni.com/cve/reward_per_components?start=2019-12-27&end=2025-02-25> >>>>>> >>>>>> since 2020 SwiftShader has been about 8% of Chrome's VRP spend - that >>>>>> seems >>>>>> quite significant to me, but probably not in the top 5 areas of >>>>>> concern. >>>>>> This was obviously key to the immense cost and pain of Flash removal >>>>>> - we >>>>>> kept having severe security incidents in practice. >>>>>> >>>>>> So assuming Ashley and I are right that this isn't likely to be easy, >>>>>> that means it's likely quite a lot of work to attempt to phase-out >>>>>> SwiftShader in a responsible fashion. But with luck maybe we can find a >>>>>> first step that is a good cost-benefit tradeoff (like putting 3P usage >>>>>> behind a permission prompt)? Or maybe it's just a better cost-benefit >>>>>> tradeoff to invest in other areas which pose a threat to a greater >>>>>> number >>>>>> users (hardening ANGLE perhaps)? But of course I will defer to the >>>>>> judgement of security and GPU experts like yourself on that question, >>>>>> I'm >>>>>> happy to consult and support if you want to invest in a plan that API >>>>>> owners can approve. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rick >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 2:48 PM 'David Adrian' via blink-dev < >>>>>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > I wrote about this previously but I'm still concerned this is a >>>>>> major breaking change for existing published WebGL content on the web. >>>>>> If >>>>>> the figure of 2.7% comes from my previous citing of Web3DSurvey >>>>>> >>>>>> It does, not it comes from Chrome's metrics system. >>>>>> >>>>>> > Does Google have their own internal data about the usage of >>>>>> SwiftShader? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is the 2.7% number. >>>>>> >>>>>> > Suppose this change rolls out and we get reports that say our WebGL >>>>>> content no longer works for 10% of users in a South American market. >>>>>> Then >>>>>> what? There is nothing feasible we can do about it. These customers were >>>>>> previously getting by with SwiftShader, but now they get an error >>>>>> message. >>>>>> So I fear this risks disaster for web games in some markets. >>>>>> >>>>>> > I mentioned I don't think it should be used as evidence to make >>>>>> such a big change as this. Maybe in some places it will affect 25% or >>>>>> 50% >>>>>> of users - who knows? How can we be sure? >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you share the number for Construct about what percentage of your >>>>>> users are using the SwiftShader fallback? Again, our numbers indicate >>>>>> that >>>>>> these are primarily older Windows workstations. Notably, SwiftShader is >>>>>> not >>>>>> used at all on mobile. >>>>>> >>>>>> > V8 does JIT with untrusted JavaScript code and that is generally >>>>>> considered reasonably secure, is there any particular technical reason >>>>>> SwiftShader is not considered as secure? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. The GPU process is shared between all sites, whereas the V8 JIT >>>>>> is per-site. This means compromising the GPU process can be enough to >>>>>> bypass site isolation protections with a single bug. Additionally, V8 >>>>>> bugs >>>>>> can be reliably patched in the browser, whereas SwiftShader "bugs" can >>>>>> be >>>>>> user-mode graphics driver bugs that are simply more exposed via >>>>>> SwiftShader >>>>>> than they would be otherwise. In this case, the browser can't patch the >>>>>> bug >>>>>> because it's in the driver. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, February 13, 2025 at 12:12:07 PM UTC-5 ash...@scirra.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I wrote about this previously but I'm still concerned this is a major >>>>>> breaking change for existing published WebGL content on the web. If the >>>>>> figure of 2.7% comes from my previous citing of Web3DSurvey ( >>>>>> https://web3dsurvey.com/) then this should be seen as very much an >>>>>> underestimate, because that site uses a relatively small sample size >>>>>> that >>>>>> is more likely to be focused on high-end devices (samples are taken from >>>>>> developer-focused sites like the three.js website, WebGPU fundamentals >>>>>> etc). I would not be surprised if the real worldwide average was more >>>>>> like >>>>>> 4-5%. Then if that's a worldwide average, there will probably be some >>>>>> specific countries or markets where the figure could be more like 10%. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Suppose this change rolls out and we get reports that say our WebGL >>>>>> content no longer works for 10% of users in a South American market. >>>>>> Then >>>>>> what? There is nothing feasible we can do about it. These customers were >>>>>> previously getting by with SwiftShader, but now they get an error >>>>>> message. >>>>>> So I fear this risks disaster for web games in some markets. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Does Google have their own internal data about the usage of >>>>>> SwiftShader? Can more data about this be shared? I respect the work done >>>>>> by >>>>>> Web3DSurvey but unfortunately for the reasons I mentioned I don't think >>>>>> it >>>>>> should be used as evidence to make such a big change as this. Maybe in >>>>>> some >>>>>> places it will affect 25% or 50% of users - who knows? How can we be >>>>>> sure? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can there not be some other fallback implemented? V8 does JIT with >>>>>> untrusted JavaScript code and that is generally considered reasonably >>>>>> secure, is there any particular technical reason SwiftShader is not >>>>>> considered as secure? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd also point out that any website that has a poor experience with >>>>>> SwiftShader can already opt-out using the failIfMajorPerformanceCaveat >>>>>> context flag. If there is some other mode that can be used instead, or >>>>>> just >>>>>> showing an error message is acceptable, then websites can already >>>>>> implement >>>>>> that. In our case with Construct we specifically attempt to obtain >>>>>> hardware-accelerated WebGPU, WebGL 2, or WebGL 1; only failing that do >>>>>> we >>>>>> resort to using SwiftShader on the basis that showing the content with >>>>>> potentially poor performance is better than not showing it at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 15:46, 'David Adrian' via blink-dev < >>>>>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Contact emails >>>>>> >>>>>> dad...@google.com, geof...@chromium.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Summary >>>>>> >>>>>> Allowing automatic fallback to WebGL backed by SwiftShader is >>>>>> deprecated and will be removed. This has been noted in DevTools since >>>>>> Chrome 130. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> WebGL context creation will fail instead of falling back to >>>>>> SwiftShader. This is for two primary reasons: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. SwiftShader is a high security risk due to JIT-ed code running in >>>>>> Chromium's GPU process. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Users have a poor experience when falling back from a >>>>>> high-performance GPU-backed WebGL to a CPU-backed implementation. Users >>>>>> have no control over this behavior and it is difficult to describe in >>>>>> bug >>>>>> reports. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> SwiftShader is a useful tool for web developers to test their sites >>>>>> on systems that are headless or do not have a supported GPU. This use >>>>>> case >>>>>> will still be supported by opting in but is not intended for running >>>>>> untrusted content. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To opt-in to lower security guarantees and allow SwiftShader for >>>>>> WebGL, run the chrome executable with the --enable-unsafe-swiftshader >>>>>> command-line switch. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> During the deprecation period, a warning will appear in the >>>>>> javascript console when a WebGL context is created and backed with >>>>>> SwiftShader. Passing --enable-unsafe-swiftshader will remove this >>>>>> warning >>>>>> message. This deprecation period began in Chrome 130. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Chromium and other browsers do not guarantee WebGL availability. >>>>>> Please test and handle WebGL context creation failure and fall back to >>>>>> other web APIs such as Canvas2D or an appropriate message to the user. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> SwiftShader is an internal implementation detail of Chromium, not a >>>>>> public web standard, therefore buy-in from other browsers is not >>>>>> required. >>>>>> The devices covered by SwiftShader (primarily older Windows devices) are >>>>>> likely already incompatible with WebGL in other browsers. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> SwiftShader is not used on mobile; this only applies to Desktop >>>>>> platforms. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Blink component >>>>>> >>>>>> Blink>WebGL >>>>>> <https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=customfield1222907:%22Blink%3EWebGL%22> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Motivation >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/gpu/swiftshader.md#automatic-swiftshader-webgl-fallback-is-deprecated >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Risks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> SwiftShader is used by devices without hardware acceleration for >>>>>> WebGL. This is approximately 2.7% of WebGL contexts. However, WebGL is >>>>>> considered fallible and in many cases, these draws are not performant >>>>>> and >>>>>> provide an effectively unusable experience for users. Many applications, >>>>>> such as Google Maps, prefer to fail out rather than use SwiftShader. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Debuggability >>>>>> >>>>>> None >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Flag name on about://flags >>>>>> >>>>>> --enable-unsafe-swiftshader command-line switch. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Finch feature name >>>>>> >>>>>> AllowSwiftShaderFallback >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tracking bug >>>>>> >>>>>> https://issues.chromium.org/40277080 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Launch bug >>>>>> >>>>>> https://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4351104 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>>> >>>>>> Shipping on Desktop 137 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5166674414927872?gate=5188866041184256 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >>>>>> <https://chromestatus.com/>. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>> To view this discussion visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAGkh42KV4DrSSyEgJaF4DnFOXAye-wRLrfD-LKGNkWhyWzshLA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAGkh42KV4DrSSyEgJaF4DnFOXAye-wRLrfD-LKGNkWhyWzshLA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>> To view this discussion visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/c5131675-dff4-4aa0-8e84-4cdc373e3035n%40chromium.org >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/c5131675-dff4-4aa0-8e84-4cdc373e3035n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>> To view this discussion visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAABs73jWBkuxvj%3DDDXmEQNwLfCa_uV5OZZ5nZJRj9ZMgP9yk7Q%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAABs73jWBkuxvj%3DDDXmEQNwLfCa_uV5OZZ5nZJRj9ZMgP9yk7Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>> To view this discussion visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAABs73hYs9O-2hdmfn37fQb-U-8m_-08i3Qg9dkUhKNQQvNLSg%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAABs73hYs9O-2hdmfn37fQb-U-8m_-08i3Qg9dkUhKNQQvNLSg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/52798f57-f5ba-411c-a66f-7883a6268a9fn%40chromium.org.
