On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 6:48 PM Lucas Stach <l.st...@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> On Fr, 2020-01-17 at 16:47 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> >
> > This breaks rendering here on arm64/gc7000 due to
> >
> > ioctl(6, DRM_IOCTL_ETNAVIV_GEM_CPU_PREP or DRM_IOCTL_MSM_GEM_CPU_PREP,
> > 0xfffff7888680) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
> > ioctl(6, DRM_IOCTL_ETNAVIV_GEM_CPU_FINI or DRM_IOCTL_QXL_CLIENTCAP,
> > 0xfffff78885e0) = 0
> > ioctl(6, DRM_IOCTL_ETNAVIV_GEM_CPU_PREP or DRM_IOCTL_MSM_GEM_CPU_PREP,
> > 0xfffff7888680) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
> > ioctl(6, DRM_IOCTL_ETNAVIV_GEM_CPU_FINI or DRM_IOCTL_QXL_CLIENTCAP,
> > 0xfffff78885e0) = 0
> > ioctl(6, DRM_IOCTL_ETNAVIV_GEM_CPU_PREP or DRM_IOCTL_MSM_GEM_CPU_PREP,
> > 0xfffff7888680) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
> > ioctl(6, DRM_IOCTL_ETNAVIV_GEM_CPU_FINI or DRM_IOCTL_QXL_CLIENTCAP,
> > 0xfffff78885e0) = 0
> >
> > This is due to
> >
> > get_abs_timeout(&req.timeout, 5000000000);
> >
> > in etna_bo_cpu_prep which can exceed NSEC_PER_SEC.
> >
> > Should i send a patch to revert that change since it breaks existing
> > userspace?
>
> No need to revert. This patch has not been applied to the etnaviv tree
> yet, I guess it's just in one of Arnds branches feeding into -next.
>
> That part of userspace is pretty dumb, as it misses to renormalize
> tv_nsec when it overflows the second boundary. So if what I see is
> correct it should be enough to allow 2 * NSEC_PER_SEC, which should
> both reject broken large timeout and keep existing userspace working.
Ah, so it's never more than 2 billion nanoseconds in known user space?
I can definitely change my patch (actually add one on top) to allow that
and handle it as before, or alternatively accept any 64-bit nanosecond value
as arm64 already did, but make it less inefficient to handle.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
Y2038 mailing list
Y2038@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
