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>
(cherry picked from commit 94d4e29aed)
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>
(cherry picked from commit 500e844a24)
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>
(cherry picked from commit 4360514d1c)
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>
(cherry picked from commit 9978b57b8d)
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>
(cherry picked from commit 8eeaa74bc2)
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>
(cherry picked from commit 2566bdd8bc)
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>
(cherry picked from commit 395124bd27)
No functional changes, this just enables it to be re-used easier.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
(cherry picked from commit e7f79c48b0)
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>
(cherry picked from commit 0eb9390f60)
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>
(cherry picked from commit a7d989d335)
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>
(cherry picked from commit 214d11d3fc)
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>
(cherry picked from commit 026627fe19)
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>
(cherry picked from commit d905348134)
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
9ad0fdb135.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
(cherry picked from commit 8b0d210449)
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>
(cherry picked from commit d08bae297f)
ef64b5ee97 (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>
(cherry picked from commit 81554d274f)
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>
(cherry picked from commit 9cc45c18ad)
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>
(cherry picked from commit fc504a44d1)
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>
(cherry picked from commit 4bff442ec5)
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>
(cherry picked from commit 9003399708)
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>
(cherry picked from commit 7347f39f94)
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>
(cherry picked from commit dbba50a128)
The commit message to 6764471901 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>
(cherry picked from commit 2967391c6d)
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
If the grab_window is the barrier window and the client owns the grab,
deliver as normal grabbed event (respecting owner_events). Otherwise,
deliver as usual.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
x/y for barrier events should contain the actual pointer position.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
Instead of having the pointer barrier code enqueue events separately from
GetPointerEvents, pass the event list through and let it add to it.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
This allows clients to add barriers that extend to the edge of the
screen. Clients are encouraged to use these instead of precise coordinates
in these cases to help prevent pointer leaks.
Signed-off-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Since barriers are axis-aligned, we can do the intersection test with
simple interpolation rather than line-segment intersection. This also
helps us out in the future when we want the barriers to extend to be
rays and lines rather than just segments.
Signed-off-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This ensures that we always complete an event sequence.
Signed-off-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Rename a variable. This is to make the diff in the next commit cleaner.
Signed-off-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Additionally, add flags when the pointer is released.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
We eventually want to send a new notify event on hitbox leave,
which signifies the dawn of a new barrier event ID, so it's
convenient if we can put the code here.
Signed-off-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
Pointers (and the hands that drive them) aren't very precise, and the
slightest amount of nudging to either side might be enough to reset
the event ID, making clients think they have an entirely new hit. Allow
for a slightly bigger "hit box" before these barriers get reset.
Signed-off-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
If we release a barrier, we want to ensure that we block all
other barriers afterwards, rather than capping the limit to
the two nearest barriers.
Signed-off-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
