-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 197
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
USB portal (cont.) #1354
USB portal (cont.) #1354
Conversation
cb66d92
to
f28ffdf
Compare
ce2b214
to
4907506
Compare
After a painful rebasing. |
74f9508
to
761f0a9
Compare
Feature is linked to flatpak/flatpak#5620 I think this is ready for review. |
69843ce
to
4dcfc94
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Checked the bits outside of usb.c
so far.
src/xdp-app-info-flatpak.c
Outdated
|
||
enumerable_devices = g_key_file_get_string_list (app_info_flatpak->flatpak_info, | ||
"USB Devices", | ||
"allowed-devices", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
enumerable-devices/hidden-devices
Might want to use defines for those constants.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
fixed the literal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Bunch of comments on the interface definition. Mostly about documentation but I'm a bit worried about what device removal means and how we should deal with udev properties.
|
||
* ``properties`` (``a{sv}``) | ||
|
||
A list of udev properties that this device has. These properties |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm really worried about this. It essentially makes udev a stable API even though it really is not.
data/org.freedesktop.portal.Usb.xml
Outdated
This method can only be called once, and only after calling | ||
org.freedesktop.portal.Usb.AcquireDevices(). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should mention the #org.freedesktop.portal.Request::Response
signal
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the response signal should carry an id that should be passed to FinishAcquireDevices
. That way there is no problem with calling AcquireDevices
multiple times before calling FinishAcquireDevices
.
|
||
There are no supported keys in the @options vardict. | ||
--> | ||
<method name="ReleaseDevices"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should probably say something about the relation to the session and connection. I assume closing the session or connection implicitly also releases all devices?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Eh, there is no session involved with acquiring and releasing devices, only a connection. The question still remains: what happens when the connection is closed. Same as release? Nothing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
when the dbus connection is closed all the devices are removed (ie released)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think my suggestion on FinishAcquireDevices
would resolve this thread.
|
||
* ``action`` (``s``) | ||
|
||
Type of event that occurred. One of "add", "change", or "remove". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What happens when one has acquired a device and it got removed? Is the fd still usable? Only sometimes?
We don't have a mechanism for revoking the fd so a real device unplug will result in a remove with the fd becoming unusable but when the user wants to revoke a device, we can't do anything with the existing fd on the client and so it won't be.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think my suggestion on FinishAcquireDevices would resolve this thread as well.
data/org.freedesktop.portal.Usb.xml
Outdated
@devices: Array of device identifiers | ||
@options: Vardict with optional further information | ||
|
||
Releases previously acquired devices. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What does it mean to release a device? Is the fd still usable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It will close the file descriptor when we release the "owned device" object. I haven't checked how libusb, for example, reacts to this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, it closes the fd on the portal side which is good because we need to do that to not leak things, but it doesn't close the fd on the client side. In fact, you cannot close the fd on the client side from the portal side. The only thing we can do is revoke file descriptors but that currently only works for evdev and hidraw and not for usb. So as long as we don't get kernel support for that, clients will be able to continue to use the fd that they acquired even if the connection is closed. We should however say something in the interface description here which will allow us to revoke those USB devices if the connection gets closed, or if the user wants to revoke access manually, when we get USB revoke from the kernel.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looked through the usb.c file now. Mostly nickpicks but also a few actual issues we have to work out.
src/usb.c
Outdated
g_dbus_method_invocation_return_error (invocation, | ||
XDG_DESKTOP_PORTAL_ERROR, | ||
XDG_DESKTOP_PORTAL_ERROR_FAILED, | ||
"Cannot call AcquireDevices() with an unfinished " |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not? The interface description doesn't mention this restriction at all.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The changes I proposed on AcquireDevices would resolve this thread.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this is done in the current code.
data/org.freedesktop.portal.Usb.xml
Outdated
This method can only be called once, and only after calling | ||
org.freedesktop.portal.Usb.AcquireDevices(). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the response signal should carry an id that should be passed to FinishAcquireDevices
. That way there is no problem with calling AcquireDevices
multiple times before calling FinishAcquireDevices
.
owned_device = g_hash_table_lookup (sender_info->owned_devices, access_data->device_id); | ||
if (!owned_device) | ||
{ | ||
fd = open (device_file, access_data->writable ? O_RDWR : O_RDONLY); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why would opening the file fail? Is udev already telling us that we should be able to open the device node (i.e. we have permission to do it) or is do we discover about bad permissions just here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
many reason. It's IO nothing is guaranteed. The device could have disappear, could be unitialized. If it can go wrong it will go wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, but that means we'll show USB devices to the portal clients, letting users go through the UI to approve access, just to then eventually notice that we actually can't make the device available. Would be much nicer if we didn't advertise those devices in the first place.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
there is not a lot we can do. We can call access on the device is_gudev_device_suitable()
and return FALSE
if the call fail. That will check for existance and read permission. At that leve we don't know if we want the write permissions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And we already check in handle_acquire_devices()
as well.
Still a lot of race condition can occur it acquiring the device.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we no longer do. the change just hadn't been pushed yet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe I'm blind but I can't seem to find it? Are you sure you pushed the latest version now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Which mean if it can't access it it won't list it. So open won't be attempted. In case of race condition, ie the device is no longer accessible between the list and this, then this will error normally.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, I missed that one. Perfect!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
actually it caused a serious regression as it didn't detect removals, and a few other things.
a258338
to
b40ccee
Compare
(I haven't addressed everything yet) |
bdaa78e
to
27f10e2
Compare
a8ce8e9
to
a3123a1
Compare
bc4aced
to
d2e1553
Compare
The test passes as I work around skipping in CI the one that fails. |
14e2e57
to
70f9647
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are a bunch of commits which fix up previous commits. I would prefer them to be squashed down.
I will squash all the USB portal stuff into one and keep the test commits as they are. Also I will shorten the commit message but copy that content into a separate file in |
LGTM |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just some nit picking about the commits...
Signed-off-by: Hubert Figuière <hub@figuiere.net>
Signed-off-by: Hubert Figuière <hub@figuiere.net>
Implement XdpUsbQuery Co-Authored By: Georges Basile Stavracas Neto <georges.stavracas@gmail.com> Co-Authored-By: Ryan Gonzalez <rymg19@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Hubert Figuière <hub@figuiere.net>
Add a new D-Bus interface org.freedesktop.portal.Usb See doc/usb-portal.md Co-Authored By: Georges Basile Stavracas Neto <georges.stavracas@gmail.com> Co-Authored-By: Ryan Gonzalez <rymg19@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Hubert Figuière <hub@figuiere.net>
We want to test the USB portal which requires USB queries to determine which USB devices should be enumerable and could potentially be acquired. This adds an environment variable similar to the one for the app id that the test harness can set.
This lets us control which USB devices are enumerable by setting the fixture to valid xdp USB query.
This is because it fails as we never get the removal event. In both podman and docker Signed-off-by: Hubert Figuière <hub@figuiere.net>
org.freedesktop.impl.portal.Usb: | ||
@short_description: USB portal backend interface | ||
|
||
This portal lets applications register global shortcuts so they can |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The description seems wrong, this has afaik nothing to do with global shortcut
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Indeed.
It also re-introduced annotations for a{sv}
arguments and doesn't have annotations for the more complex types (a(sa{sv}a{sv})
). Mind fixing that up?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
oops. I missed that too. Will address this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See #1529
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
not sure about the annotation. Will followup too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
added the annotations to the same PR.
This supercede #1238
Close #1238