XWayland 24.1 RC2 Brings Fixes For Explicit Sync & DRM Leasing

[phoronix]

Phoronix: XWayland 24.1 RC2 Brings Fixes For Explicit Sync & DRM Leasing

Red Hat's Olivier Fourdan announced today the second release candidate of the upcoming XWayland 24.1...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/XWayland-24.1-RC2-Released

[andyprough]

The Wayland input region is now set from the X11 shape input region

Seems like a good idea to borrow as much as possible from X11.

[mxan]

DRM leasing, a useful feature which GNOME refuse to implement the way the rest of the community wants it (I.e. with the Wayland protocol) but instead with a XDG portal no one asked for.

[logical]

DRM leasing, a useful feature which GNOME refuse to implement the way the rest of the community wants it (I.e. with the Wayland protocol) but instead with a XDG portal no one asked for.

AFAIK, it's possible to use DRM leasing without wayland, so the portal option sounds more general.

[ahrs]

DRM leasing, a useful feature which GNOME refuse to implement the way the rest of the community wants it (I.e. with the Wayland protocol) but instead with a XDG portal no one asked for.

Personally, I'm torn about Portals. I'm not completely against them but for something as low-level as DRM leasing does it not seem a bit stupid if XWayland is going to have to start making DBus calls?

Why are we not able to lockdown and secure Wayland protocols more? Why are Portals the only answer? I guess I don't know enough enough about the problem space.

For example, KDE has a virtual input protocol for KDE Connect that allows controlling the keyboard and mouse. This is "dangerous" so they don't expose it to any old app. There is a permissions check and it's only exposed to clients whose .desktop file has the X-KDE-Wayland-Interfaces set correctly. There is also an X-KDE-DBUS-Restricted-Interfaces.

Everything supports .desktop files and the compositor is aware of them so why are we not able to standardise something like this?

[curfew]

Personally, I'm torn about Portals. I'm not completely against them but for something as low-level as DRM leasing does it not seem a bit stupid if XWayland is going to have to start making DBus calls?

Why are we not able to lockdown and secure Wayland protocols more? Why are Portals the only answer? I guess I don't know enough enough about the problem space.?

To me it seems that the Linux VR stack is flawed on every level and that different sides have differing opinions on how to make the most sense out of it.

On Gnome's side the discussion has been dominated be people who think Flatpak-first and don't want anything that either doesn't work from within a sandbox or would require breaking out of it. However, the actual people controlling merge requests and features seem to be acceptable towards any solution that anyone is willing to bring up.

Graphics performance on Linux is so abysmal anyway that I'm not sure what is it worth to rush and implement shitty VR on every compositor when none of them work properly anyway. KDE people seem to be making the most progress on rendering performance so it kind of makes sense to have VR there NOW, whereas Gnome could just sit and wait..

[oiaohm]

Personally, I'm torn about Portals. I'm not completely against them but for something as low-level as DRM leasing does it not seem a bit stupid if XWayland is going to have to start making DBus calls?

There is a nice curve ball in Wayland development. The first form of Wayland protocol was in fact dbus only. Yes wayland implemented as a subset of dbus is the first form of wayland..

https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_10

What we call wayland protocol today comes about due to some limitations of the dbus protocol.

https://wayland.app/protocols/drm-lease-v1#compositor-support

There is a different in option over DRM Leasing. KDE/wlroots based have DRM leasing done as part of Wayland protocol.

Gnome,Weston and Valve gamescope have been looking at it being done outside the Wayland protocol.

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/29078

Now the above issue make things even more interesting. Yes ahrs there is a question should DRM leasing even in fact be in managed by X11 xserver/Wayland compositor in the first place or should this be in fact managed by likes of logind. Yes manged by logind this would be over dbus as well.

Some of these areas get horrible complex.

[MrCooper]

DRM leasing, a useful feature which GNOME refuse to implement the way the rest of the community wants it (I.e. with the Wayland protocol) but instead with a XDG portal no one asked for.

Let's see what the mutter maintainers have actually said on the topic: mutter#1743 comment 2085317

We have discussed this among the maintainers, and would like to make it clear that a Wayland protocol implementation has never been blocked, and this is still the current state.
We appreciate that there are probably sounder approaches, but given how the ecosystem now looks right now, supporting DRM leasing in GNOME using a Wayland protocol right now we believe is the most pragmatic thing to do. This of course does not leave out exploring alternatives, as they shape up.

Support for the DRM leasing Wayland protocol is now being implemented, and expected to land for mutter 47.

[swastika]

Let's see what the mutter maintainers have actually said on the topic: mutter#1743 comment 2085317

Support for the DRM leasing Wayland protocol is now being implemented, and expected to land for mutter 47.

Nice job interjecting some rare facts in Phoronix.

[oiaohm]

Let's see what the mutter maintainers have actually said on the topic: mutter#1743 comment 2085317

Support for the DRM leasing Wayland protocol is now being implemented, and expected to land for mutter 47.

Thanks for that. Do note that in the last 2 weeks. Yes the wording is they will at least implement it for now but are not promising to stick at it if they can work out something better.

So now we need weston and gamescope the reference to have it.