Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 4.17 To Likely Include Intel DRM Driver's HDCP Support

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux 4.17 To Likely Include Intel DRM Driver's HDCP Support

    Phoronix: Linux 4.17 To Likely Include Intel DRM Driver's HDCP Support

    Back in November a Google developer proposed HDCP content protection support for the Intel Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) Linux driver that is based upon their code from Chrome OS / Chromium OS. It looks like that High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection support in the i915 DRM driver will come for Linux 4.17...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...el-HDCP-Likely

  • #2
    I hope Debian will ship without this garbage.

    Comment


    • #3
      I thought HDCP was, like, everywhere now (displays, GPU, etc...).
      How come Linux works without this code already in the kernel?

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm wondering...
        I payed to own the computer.
        I payed to own the tv.
        I payed to own the HDMI cable between them.
        I payed to own the movie on an optical disc.
        Why am I not allowed to see what's going on between my devices that I own?
        Who is HDCP protecting, me or the greedy companies?
        I payed for everything in my home, what more do they want?

        Now, as far as I understand, this HDCP encryption requires some software that will run on my CPU for the sole purpose of enabling HDCP, a feature that I don't need or want.
        To my knowledge, the more software the CPU has to run, the more electrical energy the CPU will consume.
        So, my main questions are:
        Who will pay for the extra energy consumption?
        Does Intel gives me the extra money that I need to pay the consumption for this extra "feature", that I don't need?
        I don't want to hear the marketing bullshit that HDCP encryption is so efficient, that I don't even notice it.
        I know that encryption and especially strong encryption can't be as light on the CPU as a "Hello world!" program.
        Anyway, I hope that any DRM crap like this will not be accepted to the main Linux kernel.
        I want my freedom!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Creak View Post
          I thought HDCP was, like, everywhere now (displays, GPU, etc...).
          How come Linux works without this code already in the kernel?
          In general, HDCP is marketed as being everywhere. In reality, HDCP 2.2 is *NOT* backward compatible with earlier versions of HDCP since earlier version have been known to have security flaws. Also, based on my understanding, some of the licensing terms make it close to impossible to provide an update from HDCP 2.1 to HDCP 2.2 simply via a software or firmware upgrade. Since it also only needs to be on when playing content that a compliant video player demands it be on for, it usually is off. And since HDCP 2.2 was only just released in 2013, to avoid customer confusion, some streaming providers seem to be avoiding demanding it be enabled until there is more adoption. It is also more likely you will run into problems if you are attempting to play back at UHD/4k since that seems to be the quality level hollywood seems to be the most protective of.

          What I imagine will happen in the future if you don't have this patch is at some point you will attempt to play a streaming video and get an error code or a message indicating your hardware doesn't support the the protection level required to play the video. It should be similar to the issues you would have right now if you disabled Widevine CDM in your web browser. In fact, it is probably Google Widevine or Adobe Primetime which will be the primary userspace plugins which will be talking to this patch.

          I personally would like to see this patch rejected from the mainstream kernel source. More groups should be applying pressure on the W3C for rejecting the Electronic Freedom Foundation compromises on the EME specification. As it stands now, after implementing a full protected media path there can be situations were content and code passing through your workstation is outside of the view of security researchers because it would be illegal to look.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shmerl View Post
            I hope Debian will ship without this garbage.
            Let's stand up to AMD for forcing HDCP down our throats ILLEGALLY: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...ty-HDCP-Branch

            Oh wait I forgot. It's only bad when Intel does something. When AMD does it not one peep of complaint because "magic".

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Creak View Post
              I thought HDCP was, like, everywhere now (displays, GPU, etc...).
              How come Linux works without this code already in the kernel?
              It's there in the hardware (thanks to MPAA lunatics), but you can perfectly watch DRM-free video without using any of it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Danny3 View Post
                I'm wondering...
                I payed to own the computer.
                I payed to own the tv.
                I payed to own the HDMI cable between them.
                I payed to own the movie on an optical disc.
                Why am I not allowed to see what's going on between my devices that I own?
                Who is HDCP protecting, me or the greedy companies?
                I payed for everything in my home, what more do they want?

                Now, as far as I understand, this HDCP encryption requires some software that will run on my CPU for the sole purpose of enabling HDCP, a feature that I don't need or want.
                To my knowledge, the more software the CPU has to run, the more electrical energy the CPU will consume.
                So, my main questions are:
                Who will pay for the extra energy consumption?
                Does Intel gives me the extra money that I need to pay the consumption for this extra "feature", that I don't need?
                I don't want to hear the marketing bullshit that HDCP encryption is so efficient, that I don't even notice it.
                I know that encryption and especially strong encryption can't be as light on the CPU as a "Hello world!" program.
                Anyway, I hope that any DRM crap like this will not be accepted to the main Linux kernel.
                I want my freedom!
                It's inert, you are not running it, and unless you turn it on you will not be running it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by chuckula View Post
                  Let's stand up to AMD for forcing HDCP down our throats
                  Why not. If there is a way to build kernel with display code amdgpu but disabling HDCP there, distros should do it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by chuckula View Post
                    Let's stand up to AMD for forcing HDCP down our throats ILLEGALLY: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...ty-HDCP-Branch
                    Oh wait I forgot. It's only bad when Intel does something. When AMD does it not one peep of complaint because "magic".
                    There are some comments voicing opposition and the article states the reader who reported it "was frightenend by it, as most Linux users are when hearing words like "HDCP" and other forms of protection."
                    So you may want to find a better example of how Phoronix is all a bunch of AMD fanboys. Or, you can keep making straw man arguments. It's kind of amusing. Okay, mostly annoying, but somewhat amusing.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X