summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Xi
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2014-03-13Xi: check for invalid modifiers for XI2 passive grabsPeter Hutterer2-1/+6
The other values are checked correctly, but if a modifier was outside the allowed range, it would go unnoticed and cause a out-of-bounds read error for any mask equal or larger than 256. The DetailRec where we store the grab masks is only sized to 8 * sizeof(Mask). Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com> (cherry picked from commit 0f10cfd4b903d4db293ec47c8a9a0d8b33965803)
2014-02-19Check for calloc() failure in add_master()Alan Coopersmith1-0/+4
Reported-by: Ilja Van Sprundel <ivansprundel@ioactive.com> Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com> Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> (cherry picked from commit 9fc19168e7ca6308275bf8769d1ccb982f88465b)
2014-02-19Xi: fix modifier offset in XIPassiveGrab swapping functionPeter Hutterer1-1/+1
The request is followed by mask_len 4-byte units, then followed by the actual modifiers. Also fix up the swapping test, which had the same issue. Reported-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com> (cherry picked from commit 76b3be75b62657e346731444736f7e4d200beb5b) Conflicts: test/xi2/protocol-xipassivegrabdevice.c
2014-02-19Xi: Ensure DeviceChanged is emitted after grabs are deactivatedCarlos Garnacho1-1/+18
When a grab on a slave device is deactivated, the master device must be checked, just in case there were events from other devices while the slave device was stolen away by the passive grab. This may introduce misbehaviors on mismatching valuators and device features later on UpdateDeviceState(). Signed-off-by: Carlos Garnacho <carlosg@gnome.org> Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> (cherry picked from commit b2d5ee2e3684951b611fd2068d57cc65fd8305a3)
2013-12-11Xi: ungrab device when releasing a passive grab without ButtonReleaseMask ↵Peter Hutterer1-1/+2
(#71878) If an touch triggers an async button grab and that grab does not have the ButtonReleaseMask set, the TouchEnd is never delivered, deliveries is 0 and the grab is never deactivated. If the grab is pointer async and keyboard sync, the keyboard events are stuck in EnqueueEvent until some other pointer event terminates the grab. Change this to check for the number of listeners. If we're about to deliver a TouchEnd to a passive pointer grab, the number of listeners is already 1 - pointer grabs always accept so other listeners were removed. X.Org Bug 71878 <http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71878> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-12-11Xi: Don't ActivateEarlyAccept POINTER_REGULAR listenersBen Gamari1-1/+2
Bug #71878 describes a bug resulting in the server ceasing to respond to keyboard input after a touch event. The problem might be the following: DeliverTouchBeginEvent tries to deliver an event to a listener of type LISTENER_POINTER_REGULAR, taking the following if branch, if (listener->type == LISTENER_POINTER_REGULAR || listener->type == LISTENER_POINTER_GRAB) { rc = DeliverTouchEmulatedEvent(dev, ti, ev, listener, client, win, grab, xi2mask); if (rc == Success) { listener->state = LISTENER_IS_OWNER; /* async grabs cannot replay, so automatically accept this touch */ if (dev->deviceGrab.grab && dev->deviceGrab.fromPassiveGrab && dev->deviceGrab.grab->pointerMode == GrabModeAsync) ActivateEarlyAccept(dev, ti); } goto out; } DeliverTouchEmulatedEvent succeeds. The deviceGrab meets all three of the conditions of the inner if, enters ActivateEarlyAccept which then fails due to, BUG_RETURN(ti->listeners[0].type != LISTENER_GRAB && ti->listeners[0].type != LISTENER_POINTER_GRAB); That is, despite listener->type == LISTENER_POINTER_REGULAR. With my non-existent knowledge of XINPUT, it seems like the solution here might be to only ActivateEarlyAccept when listener->type == LISTENER_POINTER_GRAB. Signed-off-by: Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-10-29Xi: fix logic error when calculating emulated motion eventsPeter Hutterer1-1/+1
gcc -Wlogical-op exevents.c: In function 'DeliverEmulatedMotionEvent': exevents.c:1480:13: warning: logical 'or' of collectively exhaustive tests is always true [-Wlogical-op] The relevant snippet of exevents.c: 1479 if (ti->listeners[0].type != LISTENER_POINTER_REGULAR || 1480 ti->listeners[0].type != LISTENER_POINTER_GRAB) 1481 return; This condition was always true, causing dropped motion events. Reported-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com>
2013-08-30Xi: allow for XIAllowEvent requests larger than XI < 2.2 size (#68554)Peter Hutterer1-1/+1
XIAllowEvents changed length in XI 2.2 (for the touchid). A bug in libXi causes libXi to always use the new request length if the server supports 2.2, regardless of the client's XIQueryVersion request. The server takes the client's XIQueryVersion request into account though, resulting in a BadLength error if a 2.[0,1] client calls XIAllowEvents on a XI 2.2+ server. Can't fix this in libXi, so work around this in the server. X.Org Bug 68554 <http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68554> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Adam Jackson <ajax@redhat.com>
2013-08-30Xi: replace loop with memsetPeter Hutterer1-4/+1
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Adam Jackson <ajax@redhat.com>
2013-08-01Xi: Clamp XIClient maximal version to XIVersionMaarten Lankhorst1-17/+14
Do not allow setting client version to an arbitrary value >= XIVersion. Fixes a test error with test/xi2/protocol-xiqueryversion.c, introduced by commit 4360514d1c "Xi: Allow clients to ask for 2.3 and then 2.2 without failing" Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com> Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-07-26Xi: Allow clients to ask for 2.3 and then 2.2 without failingKeith Packard1-6/+30
This allows different sub-systems within the same application to request different Xi versions without either getting old behaviour everywhere or simply failing with a BadValue. Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-07-11dix: when ungrabbing an active grab, accept pointer grabs (#66720)Peter Hutterer1-12/+23
Ungrabbing a device during an active touch grab rejects the grab. Ungrabbing a device during an active pointer grab accepts the grab. Rejection is not really an option for a pointer-emulated grab, if a client has a button mask on the window it would get a ButtonPress emulated after UngrabDevice. That is against the core grab behaviour. X.Org Bug 66720 <http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66720> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
2013-05-15Xi: fix warning - remove unused 'rc'Peter Hutterer1-1/+0
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10Xi: check for HAS_ACCEPTED only for grab listenersPeter Hutterer1-1/+1
If we have one listener left but it's not a grab, it cannot be in LISTENER_HAS_ACCEPTED state. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10dix: always copy grabs, don't reference themPeter Hutterer1-2/+5
Introduced in xorg-server-1.13.99.901-2-g9ad0fdb. Storing the grab pointer in the listener turns out to be a bad idea. If the grab is not an active grab or an implicit grab, the pointer stored is the one to the grab attached on the window. This grab may be removed if the client calls UngrabButton or similar while the touch is still active, leaving a dangling pointer. To avoid this, copy the grab wherever we need to reference it later. This is also what we do for pointer/keyboard grabs, where we copy the grab as soon as it becomes active. Reported-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10dix: AllocGrab can copy if an argument is passed inPeter Hutterer4-4/+4
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10dix: move EmitTouchEnd to touch.cPeter Hutterer1-31/+4
No functional changes, this just enables it to be re-used easier. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10Xi: Don't emit a TouchEnd event to a frozen devicePeter Hutterer1-0/+4
EmitTouchEnd calls DeliverTouchEvents directly instead of through public.processInputProc. If a device is frozen, the TouchEnd is processed while the device is waiting for a XAllowEvents and thus ends the touch point (and the grab) before the client decided what to do with it. In the case of ReplayPointer, this loses the event. This is a hack, but making EmitTouchEnd use processInputProc breaks approximately everything, especially the touch point is cleaned up during ProcessTouchEvents. Working around that is a bigger hack than this. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10Xi: use public.processInputProc to replay the touch historyPeter Hutterer1-3/+5
If a device is frozen in results to a grab, we need to enqueue the events. This makes things complicated, and hard to follow since touch events are now replayed in the history, pushed into EnqueueEvent, then replayed later during PlayReleasedEvents in response to an XAllowEvents. While the device is frozen, no touch events are processed, so if there is a touch client with ownership mask _below_ the grab this will delay the delivery and potentially screw gesture recognition. However, this is the behaviour we have already anyway if the top-most client is a sync pgrab or there is a sync grab active on the device when the TouchBegin was generated. (also note, such a client would only reliably work in case of ReplayPointer anyway) Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10Xi: when punting to a new owner, always create TouchEnd eventsPeter Hutterer1-5/+14
If a touch is pending_finish and we just punted it to the next owner, that client must receive a TouchEnd event. If we just punted to the last owner and that owner not a touch grab, we need to end the touch since this is the last event to be sent, and the client cannot accept/reject this. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10Xi: save state for early acceptancePeter Hutterer1-3/+3
Delivering an event changes the state to LISTENER_IS_OWNER and we thus lose the information of early acceptance. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10Xi: if a passive async grab is activated from an emulated touch, acceptPeter Hutterer1-1/+7
Async grabs cannot replay events, they cannot reject, so we can do an early accept here. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10Xi: fix lookup in ActivateEarlyAcceptPeter Hutterer1-8/+7
ActivateEarlyAccept() can only be called from a grabbing client, so we can ignore the rest. And it's easy enough to get the client from that since 9ad0fdb135a1c336771aee1f6eab75a6ad874aff. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10Xi: update the core listener state if we delivered the touch eventPeter Hutterer1-7/+9
If a TouchBegin is sent to a core client, that client is now the owner. By the time the TouchEnd is being processed, the client cannot replay anymore, so we can assume that this is the final touch end and we can clean up the touch record. Note: DeliverTouchEmulatedEvent is called for all listeners and immediately bails out if the client is not the owner and thus shouldn't yet get the event. Thus, check the return code. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10Xi: if we delivered a TouchEnd to a passive grab, end itPeter Hutterer1-3/+2
ef64b5ee97099618cf2e2cbbd3e471095695ae24 (which introduced the TOUCH_CLIENT_ID check) has a wrong assumption that generated touch events (TOUCH_CLIENT_ID) should not terminate passive grabs. This is untrue, a TouchEnd may be generated in response to a TouchReject higher up. If we _deliver_ an event to a client, terminate the passive grab. This requires us to count the actually delivered events too (first hunk). Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10Xi: not having an ownership mask does not mean automatic acceptancePeter Hutterer1-1/+1
If we only have a single touch-grabbing client, setting the client as owner would clean up the touch once the TouchEnd was processed. If the client then calls XIAllowTouches() it will receive a BadValue for the touch ID (since the internal record is already cleaned up). Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-05-10input: print warnings if drivers don't initialize properlyPeter Hutterer1-6/+10
If drivers supply incorrect values don't just quietly return False, spew to the log so we can detect what's going on. All these cases are driver bugs and should be fixed immediately. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
2013-05-07Xi: free barrier code at reset timePeter Hutterer3-2/+16
==29423== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 73 of 328 ==29423== at 0x4A06B6F: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:593) ==29423== by 0x5987C0: XIBarrierInit (xibarriers.c:908) ==29423== by 0x58F370: XInputExtensionInit (extinit.c:1300) ==29423== by 0x4F33C3: InitExtensions (miinitext.c:337) ==29423== by 0x4997DB: main (main.c:208) Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
2013-05-07Xi: always return BadMatch for XTest devices ChangeDeviceControl requestsPeter Hutterer3-0/+13
The only controls that still do something are DEVICE_RESOLUTION and DEVICE_ENABLE. XTest devices have no resolution to change, and they cannot be disabled. So skip the lot, and prevent a crash in the DDX when it's trying to de-reference pInfo->control_proc on device with no pInfo struct. Likewise, don't allow setting device mode or the valuators. XTest pointers are always relative, they don't have a mode. Test cases: xts5/XI/ChangeDeviceControl (1/10) xts5/XI/SetDeviceValuators (1/6) and a few others Reported-by: Knut Petersen <Knut_Petersen@t-online.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
2013-05-07Xi: fix comment - XI2 grabs aren't keysym grabsPeter Hutterer1-2/+1
Comment dates back to a pre-release version of XI2 that supported keysym grabs. That never made it into a release, it was ditched before. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
2013-04-15Never try to execute BellProcPtr NULL.Knut Petersen1-1/+2
This prevents xts XI/XDeviceBell-2 test from segfaulting the server. Signed-off-by: Knut Petersen <Knut_Petersen@t-online.de> Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-04-15Xi: fix swapped grab mode args for keyboard devices in XIGrabDeviceRui Matos1-2/+13
The protocol says that the grab_mode argument applies to the device being grabbed and paired_device_mode to the paired master device. GrabDevice() however takes in a pointer mode and a keyboard mode and so we have to swap the values according the type of device being grabbed. Signed-off-by: Rui Matos <tiagomatos@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-04-11Xi: Do not handle ET_TouchOwnership in ProcessTouchEventMaarten Lankhorst1-20/+22
The event struct is different, causing memory corruption on 1.13 and 1.14, as can be witnessed in https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56578 Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com> Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-04-11Xi: Use correct destination when swapping barrier eventsKeith Packard1-18/+18
Write the swapped values to the destination rather than the source. Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com> Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-03-25Xi: add a comment to make a condition a bit clearerPeter Hutterer1-0/+1
The commit message to 676447190190d8546165e21be242cf16dd69f5ae explains it, but that doesn't stop the WTF moment when reading the code. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
2013-03-25Xi: compress two if statements with the same bodyPeter Hutterer1-7/+3
We do the same thing here, compress them into one body. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
2013-03-25Xi: use a temp variable for the new listenerPeter Hutterer1-8/+10
Instead of accessing ti->listener[0] all the time. No functional changes. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
2013-03-25Xi: return !Success from DeliverTouchEmulatedEvent if we didn't deliverPeter Hutterer1-2/+2
All callers currently ignore the new value, so this patch has no effect. Inverse call graph: DeliverTouchEmulatedEvent DeliverEmulatedMotionEvent Ignores value DeliverTouchBeginEvent DeliverTouchEvent DeliverTouchEvents Ignores value DeliverTouchEndEvent DeliverTouchEvent DeliverTouchEvents Ignores value Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
2013-03-04Xi: force dtime to 0 on the first BarrierHitPeter Hutterer1-1/+4
dtime to the previous event is 0 on the first BarrierHit event. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net> Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
2013-03-04xibarriers: Remove accidental use of the comma operatorJasper St. Pierre1-2/+2
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2013-02-08Xi: limit valuator copy to valuator array size (#59939)Peter Hutterer1-1/+1
mask[(MAX_VALUATORS + 7)/8] is larger than data[MAX_VALUATORS], so static code checkers think we may be running OOB on the data array. Mask is initialized to 0, so this should not happen, but change it anyway to shut up code analyzer noise. X.Org Bug 59939 <http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59939> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com>
2013-01-09dix: add resource type to touch listenersPeter Hutterer1-7/+4
Instead of guessing what resource type the listener is and what property to retrieve, store the resource type in the listener directly. Breaks XIT test cases: TouchGrabTestMultipleTaps.PassiveGrabPointerEmulationMultipleTouchesFastSuccession Fixes https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56557 Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com> Reviewed-by: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@ubuntu.com>
2013-01-09input: Record grab pointer in TouchListenerKeith Packard1-21/+6
This places a pointer to the grab related to a TouchListener directly in the TouchListener structure rather than hoping to find the grab later on using the resource ID. Passive grabs have resource ID in the resource DB so they can be removed when a client exits, and those resource IDs get copied when activated, but implicit grabs are constructed on-the-fly and have no resource DB entry. Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com> Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
2012-12-19Merge remote-tracking branch 'yselkowitz/master'Keith Packard4-7/+7
I checked this patch with diff -w to check that it only affected whitespace.
2012-12-19Merge remote-tracking branch 'whot/barriers'Keith Packard6-2/+1057
Conflicts: Xi/xichangehierarchy.c Small conflict with the patch from Xi: don't use devices after removing them Was easily resolved by hand. Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
2012-12-18Xi: if a MD is removed, send a barrier leave event (if applicable)Peter Hutterer1-1/+29
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
2012-12-18Xi: don't store the window pointer in barriers, store the window IDPeter Hutterer1-5/+5
When a client shuts down and resources are being freed, the window may have been freed already, so accessing it to get the window ID is bad. Plus, we never care about the window anyway other than for stuffing it into the event. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
2012-12-18Xi: fix per-device barrier handlingPeter Hutterer3-49/+195
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
2012-12-18Xi: don't use devices after removing themPeter Hutterer1-4/+5
RemoveDevice() frees the DeviceIntPtr, we shouldn't use the pointer after that Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
2012-12-17Xi: fix swapping for barrier eventsPeter Hutterer1-24/+21
Protocol events don't contain pointers, so it's easier to copy everything over, then swap in-place. Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.39.1) at 2024-11-22 16:26:35 +0000