This lets us stop using the 'pointer' typedef in Xdefs.h as 'pointer'
is used throughout the X server for other things, and having duplicate
names generates compiler warnings.
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
This adds support for clients that would like to get a notification
every time a barrier is hit, and allows clients to temporarily release
a barrier so that pointers can go through them, without having to
destroy and recreate barriers.
Based on work by Chris Halse Rogers <chris.halse.rogers@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@mecheye.net>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Once the TouchEnd appears on the device, the touch is done. If the client
still has a pointer grab, accept it to avoid clients with TouchOwnership
selections to wait indefinitely for the actual touch event.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
As before GetTouchEvents causes unwanted side effects. Add a new
function GetDixTouchEnd, which generates a touch event from the touch
point. We fill in the event's screen coordinates from the MD's current
sprite position.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Jaeger <ThJaeger@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Button mask should be out-of-band with the emulated
pointer events as touch devices don't truly have
"buttons". Even though, it's handy to have the modifier
mask from the paired keyboard on touch events.
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>
Ensure emulated pointer events contain the state that applies before the
event was processed, so the device state must be updated after delivering
such emulated events.
Co-authored-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
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>
exevents.c: In function 'ProcessTouchEvent':
exevents.c:1601:20: warning: too many arguments for format
Signed-off-by: Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz@users.sourceforge.net>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
If a client is still waiting for the TouchBegin, don't deliver a TouchEnd
event.
X.Org Bug 55738 <http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55738>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Tested-by: Thomas Jaeger <thjaeger@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
This flag is never set, so checking for it here means that we'll
never release the simulated mouse button press after the user touches
(and releases) the touchscreen for the first time.
Fixes a problem where the XO laptop touchpad became totally
unusable after touching the screen for the first time (since X then
behaved as if the mouse button was held down all the time).
Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake <dsd@laptop.org>
Reviewed-by: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
When the owner of a touch accepts it, the other listeners must
receive a TouchEnd.
Even though there's code implementing the logic above in
ProcessTouchOwnershipEvent(), DeliverTouchEndEvent() was refusing to send
those TouchEnd events in this situatuation.
Signed-off-by: Daniel d'Andrada <daniel.dandrada@canonical.com>
Reviewed-by: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Tested-by: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
exevents.c: In function 'DeepCopyFeedbackClasses':
exevents.c:272:20: warning: declaration of 'classes' shadows a previous
local [-Wshadow]
exevents.c:245:16: warning: shadowed declaration is here [-Wshadow]
(and a few more like this)
exevents.c: In function 'DeliverTouchEmulatedEvent':
exevents.c:1442:27: warning: declaration of 'win' shadows a parameter
[-Wshadow]
exevents.c:1404:55: warning: shadowed declaration is here [-Wshadow]
exevents.c:1475:28: warning: declaration of 'listener' shadows a parameter
[-Wshadow]
exevents.c:1403:62: warning: shadowed declaration is here [-Wshadow]
xiselectev.c: In function 'ProcXISelectEvents':
xiselectev.c:178:34: warning: declaration of 'dummy' shadows a previous
local [-Wshadow]
xiselectev.c:91:18: warning: shadowed declaration is here [-Wshadow]
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-by: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@canonical.com>
This is only called from the enterleave implementation, so move it and its
helper functions to there. No functional changes.
Fixes build error introduced in 31174565ec if
building with '-Werror=implicit-function-declaration'
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Huddleston <jeremyhu@apple.com>
If a touch is physically active, the pointer core state should reflect
that the first button is pressed. Currently, this only occurs when there
are active listeners of the touch sequence. By moving the device state
updating to the beginning of touch processing we ensure it is updated
according to the processed physical state no matter what.
Signed-off-by: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@canonical.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Currently, the touch is only logically ended if the touch has physically
ended. If the touch hasn't physically ended, the touch record is never
ended. If there aren't any more listeners, we don't need to keep the dix
touch record around any more.
Signed-off-by: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@canonical.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
As a special case, if a still physically active pointer emulated touch
has no listeners and the device is explicitly grabbed for pointer
events, create a new dix touch record for the grab only.
This allows for clients to "hand off" grabs. For example, when dragging
a window under compiz the window decorator sees the button press and
then ungrabs the implicit grab. It then tells compiz to grab the device,
and compiz then moves the window with the pointer motion. This is racy,
but is allowed by the input protocol for pointer events when there are
no other clients with a grab on the device.
Signed-off-by: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@canonical.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
