libinput and the custom pointer acceleration function

After 8 months of work by Yinon Burgansky, libinput now has a new pointer acceleration profile: the "custom" profile. This profile allows users to tweak the exact response of their device based on their input speed.

A short primer: the pointer acceleration profile is a function that multiplies the incoming deltas with a given factor F, so that your input delta (x, y) becomes (Fx, Fy). How this is done is specific to the profile, libinput's existing profiles had either a flat factor or an adaptive factor that roughly resembles what Xorg used to have, see the libinput documentation for the details. The adaptive curve however has a fixed behaviour, all a user could do was scale the curve up/down, but not actually adjust the curve.

Input speed to output speed

The new custom filter allows exactly that: it allows a user to configure a completely custom ratio between input speed and output speed. That ratio will then influence the current delta. There is a whole new API to do this but simplified: the profile is defined via a series of points of (x, f(x)) that are linearly interpolated. Each point is defined as input speed in device units/ms to output speed in device units/ms. For example, to provide a flat acceleration equivalent, specify [(0.0, 0.0), (1.0, 1.0)]. With the linear interpolation this is of course a 45-degree function, and any incoming speed will result in the equivalent output speed.

Noteworthy: we are talking about the speed here, not any individual delta. This is not exactly the same as the flat acceleration profile (which merely multiplies the deltas by a constant factor) - it does take the speed of the device into account, i.e. device units moved per ms. For most use-cases this is the same but for particularly slow motion, the speed may be calculated across multiple deltas (e.g. "user moved 1 unit over 21ms"). This avoids some jumpyness at low speeds.

But because the curve is speed-based, it allows for some interesting features too: the curve [(0.0, 1.0), (1.0, 1.0)] is a horizontal function at 1.0. Which means that any input speed results in an output speed of 1 unit/ms. So regardless how fast the user moves the mouse, the output speed is always constant. I'm not immediately sure of a real-world use case for this particular case (some accessibility needs maybe) but I'm sure it's a good prank to play on someone.

Because libinput is written in C, the API is not necessarily immediately obvious but: to configure you pass an array of (what will be) y-values and set the step-size. The curve then becomes: [(0 * step-size, array[0]), (1 * step-size, array[1]), (2 * step-size, array[2]), ...]. There are some limitations on the number of points but they're high enough that they should not matter.

Note that any curve is still device-resolution dependent, so the same curve will not behave the same on two devices with different resolution (DPI). And since the curves uploaded by the user are hand-polished, the speed setting has no effect - we cannot possibly know how a custom curve is supposed to scale. The setting will simply update with the provided value and return that but the behaviour of the device won't change in response.

Motion types

Finally, there's another feature in this PR - the so-called "movement type" which must be set when defining a curve. Right now, we have two types, "fallback" and "motion". The "motion" type applies to, you guessed it, pointer motion. The only other type available is fallback which applies to everything but pointer motion. The idea here is of course that we can apply custom acceleration curves for various different device behaviours - in the future this could be scrolling, gesture motion, etc. And since those will have a different requirements, they can be configure separately.

How to use this?

As usual, the availability of this feature depends on your Wayland compositor and how this is exposed. For the Xorg + xf86-input-libinput case however, the merge request adds a few properties so that you can play with this using the xinput tool:

  # Set the flat-equivalent function described above
  $ xinput set-prop "devname" "libinput Accel Custom Motion Points" 0.0 1.0
  # Set the step, i.e. the above points are on 0 u/ms, 1 u/ms, ...
  # Can be skipped, 1.0 is the default anyway
  $ xinput set-prop "devname" "libinput Accel Custom Motion Points" 1.0 
  # Now enable the custom profile
  $ xinput set-prop "devname" "libinput Accel Profile Enabled" 0 0 1
  

The above sets a custom pointer accel for the "motion" type. Setting it for fallback is left as an exercise to the reader (though right now, I think the fallback curve is pretty much only used if there is no motion curve defined).

Happy playing around (and no longer filing bug reports if you don't like the default pointer acceleration ;)

Availability

This custom profile will be available in libinput 1.23 and xf86-input-libinput-1.3.0. No release dates have been set yet for either of those.

X servers no longer allow byte-swapped clients (by default)

In the beginning, there was the egg. Then fictional people started eating that from different ends, and the terms of "little endians" and "Big Endians" was born.

Computer architectures (mostly) come with one of either byte order: MSB first or LSB first. The two are incompatible of course, and many a bug was introduced trying to convert between the two (or, more common: failing to do so). The two byte orders were termed Big Endian and little endian, because that hilarious naming scheme at least gives us something to laugh about while contemplating throwing it all away and considering a future as, I don't know, a strawberry plant.

Back in the mullet-infested 80s when the X11 protocol was designed both little endian and big endian were common enough. And back then running the X server on a different host than the client was common too - the X terminals back then had less processing power than a smart toilet seat today so the cpu-intensive clients were running on some mainfraime. To avoid overtaxing the poor mainframe already running dozens of clients for multiple users, the job of converting between the two byte orders was punted to the X server. So to this day whenever a client connects, the first byte it sends is a literal "l" or "B" to inform the server of the client's byte order. Where the byte order doesn't match the X server's byte order, the client is a "swapped client" in X server terminology and all 16, 32, and 64-bit values must be "byte-swapped" into the server's byte order. All of those values in all requests, and then again back to the client's byte order in all outgoing replies and events. Forever, till a crash do them part.

If you get one of those wrong, the number is no longer correct. And it's properly wrong too, the difference between 0x1 and 0x01000000 is rather significant. [0] Which has the hilarious side-effect of... well, pretty much anything. But usually it ranges from crashing the server (thus taking all other clients down in commiseration) to leaking random memory locations. The list of security issues affecting the various SProcFoo implementations (X server naming scheme for Swapped Procedure for request Foo) is so long that I'm too lazy to pull out the various security advisories and link to them. Just believe me, ok? *jedi handwave*

These days, encountering a Big Endian host is increasingly niche, letting it run an X client that connects to your local little-endian X server is even more niche [1]. I think the only regular real-world use-case for this is running X clients on an s390x, connecting to your local intel-ish (and thus little endian) workstation. Not something most users do on a regular basis. So right now, the byte-swapping code is mainly a free attack surface that 99% of users never actually use for anything real. So... let's not do that?

I just merged a PR into the X server repo that prohibits byte-swapped clients by default. A Big Endian client connecting to an X server will fail the connection with an error message of "Prohibited client endianess, see the Xserver man page". [2] Thus, a whole class of future security issues avoided - yay!

For the use-cases where you do need to let Big Endian clients connect to your little endian X server, you have two options: start your X server (Xorg, Xwayland, Xnest, ...) with the +byteswappedclients commandline option. Alternatively, and this only applies for Xorg: add Option "AllowByteSwappedClients" "on" to the xorg.conf ServerFlags section. Both of these will change the default back to the original setting. Both are documented in the Xserver(1) and xorg.conf(5) man pages, respectively.

Now, there's a drawback: in the Wayland stack, the compositor is in charge of starting Xwayland which means the compositor needs to expose a way of passing +byteswappedclients to Xwayland. This is compositor-specific, bugs are filed for mutter (merged for GNOME 44), kwin and wlroots. Until those are addressed, you cannot easily change this default (short of changing /usr/bin/Xwayland into a wrapper script that passes the option through).

There's no specific plan yet which X releases this will end up in, primarily because the release cycle for X is...undefined. Probably xserver-23.0 if and when that happens. It'll probably find its way into the xwayland-23.0 release, if and when that happens. Meanwhile, distributions interested in this particular change should consider backporting it to their X server version. This has been accepted as a Fedora 38 change.

[0] Also, it doesn't help that much of the X server's protocol handling code was written with the attitude of "surely the client wouldn't lie about that length value"
[1] little-endian client to Big Endian X server is so rare that it's barely worth talking about. But suffice to say, the exact same applies, just with little and big swapped around.
[2] That message is unceremoniously dumped to stderr, but that bit is unfortunately a libxcb issue.

libei - opening the portal doors

Time for another status update on libei, the transport layer for bouncing emulated input events between applications and Wayland compositors [1]. And this time it's all about portals and how we're about to use them for libei communication. I've hinted at this in the last post, but of course you're forgiven if you forgot about this in the... uhm.. "interesting" year that was 2022. So, let's recap first:

Our basic premise is that we want to emulate and/or capture input events in the glorious new world that is Wayland (read: where applications can't do whatever they want, whenever they want). libei is a C library [0] that aims to provide this functionality. libei supports "sender" and "receiver" contexts and that just specifies which way the events will flow. A sender context (e.g. xdotool) will send emulated input events to the compositor, a "receiver" context will - you'll never guess! - receive events from the compositor. If you have the InputLeap [2] use-case, the server-side will be a receiver context, the client side a sender context. But libei is really just the transport layer and hasn't had that many changes since the last post - most of the effort was spent on trying to figure out how to exchange the socket between different applications. And for that, we have portals!

RemoteDesktop

In particular, we have a PR for the RemoteDesktop portal to add that socket exchange. In particular, once a RemoteDesktop session starts your application can request an EIS socket and send input events over that. This socket supersedes the current NotifyButton and similar DBus calls and removes the need for the portal to stay in the middle - the application and compositor now talk directly to each other. The compositor/portal can still close the session at any time though, so all the benefits of a portal stay there. The big advantage of integrating this into RemoteDesktop is that the infrastructucture for that is already mostly in place - once your compositor adds the bits for the new ConnectToEIS method you get all the other pieces for free. In GNOME this includes a visual indication that your screen is currently being remote-controlled, same as from a real RemoteDesktop session.

Now, talking to the RemoteDesktop portal is nontrivial simply because using DBus is nontrivial, doubly so for the way how sessions and requests work in the portals. To make this easier, libei 0.4.1 now includes a new library "liboeffis" that enables your application to catch the DBus. This library has a very small API and can easily be integrated with your mainloop (it's very similar to libei). We have patches for Xwayland to use that and it's really trivial to use. And of course, with the other Xwayland work we already had this means we can really run xdotool through Xwayland to connect through the XDG Desktop Portal as a RemoteDesktop session and move the pointer around. Because, kids, remember, uhm, Unix is all about lots of separate pieces.

InputCapture

On to the second mode of libei - the receiver context. For this, we also use a portal but a brand new one: the InputCapture portal. The InputCapture portal is the one to use to decide when input events should be captured. The actual events are then sent over the EIS socket.

Right now, the InputCapture portal supports PointerBarriers - virtual lines on the screen edges that, once crossed, trigger input capture for a capability (e.g. pointer + keyboard). And an application's basic approach is to request a (logical) representation of the available desktop areas ("Zones") and then set up pointer barriers at the edge(s) of those Zones. Get the EIS connection, Enable() the session and voila - the compositor will (hopefully) send input events when the pointer crosses one of those barriers. Once that happens you'll get a DBus signal in InputCapture and the events will start flowing on the EIS socket. The portal itself doesn't need to sit in the middle, events go straight to the application. The portal can still close the session anytime though. And the compositor can decide to stop capturing events at any time.

There is actually zero Wayland-y code in all this, it's display-system acgnostic. So anyone with too much motivation could add this to the X server too. Because that's what the world needs...

The (currently) bad news is that this needs to be pulled into a lot of different repositories. And everything needs to get ready before it can be pulled into anything to make sure we don't add broken API to any of those components. But thanks to a lot of work by Olivier Fourdan, we have this mostly working in InputLeap (tbh the remaining pieces are largely XKB related, not libei-related). Together with the client implementation (through RemoteDesktop) we can move pointers around like in the InputLeap of old (read: X11).

Our current goal is for this to be ready for GNOME 45/Fedora 39.

[0] eventually a protocol but we're not there yet
[1] It doesn't actually have to be a compositor but that's the prime use-case, so...
[2] or barrier or synergy. I'll stick with InputLeap for this post

The new XWAYLAND extension is available

As of xorgproto 2022.2, we have a new X11 protocol extension. First, you may rightly say "whaaaat? why add new extensions to the X protocol?" in a rather unnecessarily accusing way, followed up by "that's like adding lipstick to a dodo!". And that's not completely wrong, but nevertheless, we have a new protocol extension to the ... [checks calendar] almost 40 year old X protocol. And that extension is, ever creatively, named "XWAYLAND".

If you recall, Xwayland is a different X server than Xorg. It doesn't try to render directly to the hardware, instead it's a translation layer between the X protocol and the Wayland protocol so that X clients can continue to function on a Wayland compositor. The X application is generally unaware that it isn't running on Xorg and Xwayland (and the compositor) will do their best to accommodate for all the quirks that the application expects because it only speaks X. In a way, it's like calling a restaurant and ordering a burger because the person answering speaks American English. Without realising that you just called the local fancy French joint and now the chefs will have to make a burger for you, totally without avec.

Anyway, sometimes it is necessary for a client (or a user) to know whether the X server is indeed Xwayland. Previously, this was done through heuristics: the xisxwayland tool checks for XRandR properties, the xinput tool checks for input device names, and so on. These heuristics are just that, though, so they can become unreliable as Xwayland gets closer to emulating Xorg or things just change. And properties in general are problematic since they could be set by other clients. To solve this, we now have a new extension.

The XWAYLAND extension doesn't actually do anything, it's the bare minimum required for an extension. It just needs to exist and clients only need to XQueryExtension or check for it in XListExtensions (the equivalent to xdpyinfo | grep XWAYLAND). Hence, no support for Xlib or libxcb is planned. So of all the nightmares you've had in the last 2 years, the one of misidentifying Xwayland will soon be in the past.

libei - adding support for passive contexts

A quick reminder: libei is the library for emulated input. It comes as a pair of C libraries, libei for the client side and libeis for the server side.

libei has been sitting mostly untouched since the last status update. There are two use-cases we need to solve for input emulation in Wayland - the ability to emulate input (think xdotool, or Synergy/Barrier/InputLeap client) and the ability to capture input (think Synergy/Barrier/InputLeap server). The latter effectively blocked development in libei [1], until that use-case was sorted there wasn't much point investing too much into libei - after all it may get thrown out as a bad idea. And epiphanies were as elusive like toilet paper and RATs, so nothing much get done. This changed about a week or two ago when the required lightbulb finally arrived, pre-lit from the factory.

So, the solution to the input capturing use-case is going to be a so-called "passive context" for libei. In the traditional [2] "active context" approach for libei we have the EIS implementation in the compositor and a client using libei to connect to that. The compositor sets up a seat or more, then some devices within that seat that typically represent the available screens. libei then sends events through these devices, causing input to be appear in the compositor which moves the cursor around. In a typical and simple use-case you'd get a 1920x1080 absolute pointer device and a keyboard with a $layout keymap, libei then sends events to position the cursor and or happily type away on-screen.

In the "passive context" <deja-vu> approach for libei we have the EIS implementation in the compositor and a client using libei to connect to that. The compositor sets up a seat or more, then some devices within that seat </deja-vu> that typically represent the physical devices connected to the host computer. libei then receives events from these devices, causing input to be generated in the libei client. In a typical and simple use-case you'd get a relative pointer device and a keyboard device with a $layout keymap, the compositor then sends events matching the relative input of the connected mouse or touchpad.

The two notable differences are thus: events flow from EIS to libei and the devices don't represent the screen but rather the physical [3] input devices.

This changes libei from a library for emulated input to an input event transport layer between two processes. On a much higher level than e.g. evdev or HID and with more contextual information (seats, devices are logically abstracted, etc.). And of course, the EIS implementation is always in control of the events, regardless which direction they flow. A compositor can implement an event filter or designate key to break the connection to the libei client. In pseudocode, the compositor's input event processing function will look like this:

  function handle_input_events():
     real_events = libinput.get_events()
     for e in real_events:
       if input_capture_active:
         send_event_to_passive_libei_client(e)
       else:
         process_event(e)
         
     emulated_events = eis.get_events_from_active_clients()
     for e in emulated_events:
          process_event(e)
  

Not shown here are the various appropriate filters and conversions in between (e.g. all relative events from libinput devices would likely be sent through the single relative device exposed on the EIS context). Again, the compositor is in control so it would be trivial to implement e.g. capturing of the touchpad only but not the mouse.

In the current design, a libei context can only be active or passive, not both. The EIS context is both, it's up to the implementation to disconnect active or passive clients if it doesn't support those.

Notably, the above only caters for the transport of input events, it doesn't actually make any decision on when to capture events. This handled by the CaptureInput XDG Desktop Portal [4]. The idea here is that an application like Synergy/Barrier/InputLeap server connects to the CaptureInput portal and requests a CaptureInput session. In that session it can define pointer barriers (left edge, right edge, etc.) and, in the future, maybe other triggers. In return it gets a libei socket that it can initialize a libei context from. When the compositor decides that the pointer barrier has been crossed, it re-routes the input events through the EIS context so they pop out in the application. Synergy/Barrier/InputLeap then converts that to the global position, passes it to the right remote Synergy/Barrier/InputLeap client and replays it there through an active libei context where it feeds into the local compositor.

Because the management of when to capture input is handled by the portal and the respective backends, it can be natively integrated into the UI. Because the actual input events are a direct flow between compositor and application, the latency should be minimal. Because it's a high-level event library, you don't need to care about hardware-specific details (unlike, say, the inputfd proposal from 2017). Because the negotiation of when to capture input is through the portal, the application itself can run inside a sandbox. And because libei only handles the transport layer, compositors that don't want to support sandboxes can set up their own negotiation protocol.

So overall, right now this seems like a workable solution.

[1] "blocked" is probably overstating it a bit but no-one else tried to push it forward, so..
[2] "traditional" is probably overstating it for a project that's barely out of alpha development
[3] "physical" is probably overstating it since it's likely to be a logical representation of the types of inputs, e.g. one relative device for all mice/touchpads/trackpoints
[4] "handled by" is probably overstating it since at the time of writing the portal is merely a draft of an XML file

The xf86-input-wacom driver hits 1.0

After roughly 20 years and counting up to 0.40 in release numbers, I've decided to call the next version of the xf86-input-wacom driver the 1.0 release. [1] This cycle has seen a bulk of development (>180 patches) which is roughly as much as the last 12 releases together. None of these patches actually added user-visible features, so let's talk about technical dept and what turned out to be an interesting way of reducing it.

The wacom driver's git history goes back to 2002 and the current batch of maintainers (Ping, Jason and I) have all been working on it for one to two decades. It used to be a Wacom-only driver but with the improvements made to the kernel over the years the driver should work with most tablets that have a kernel driver, albeit some of the more quirky niche features will be more limited (but your non-Wacom devices probably don't have those features anyway).

The one constant was always: the driver was extremely difficult to test, something common to all X input drivers. Development is a cycle of restarting the X server a billion times, testing is mostly plugging hardware in and moving things around in the hope that you can spot the bugs. On a driver that doesn't move much, this isn't necessarily a problem. Until a bug comes along, that requires some core rework of the event handling - in the kernel, libinput and, yes, the wacom driver.

After years of libinput development, I wasn't really in the mood for the whole "plug every tablet in and test it, for every commit". In a rather caffeine-driven development cycle [2], the driver was separated into two logical entities: the core driver and the "frontend". The default frontend is the X11 one which is now a relatively thin layer around the core driver parts, primarily to translate events into the X Server's API. So, not unlike libinput + xf86-input-libinput in terms of architecture. In ascii-art:

                                             |
                     +--------------------+  |   big giant 
  /dev/input/event0->|  core driver | x11 |->|    X server
                     +--------------------+  |    process
                                             |
  

Now, that logical separation means we can have another frontend which I implemented as a relatively light GObject wrapper and is now a library creatively called libgwacom:

                                            
                     +-----------------------+  |
  /dev/input/event0->|  core driver | gwacom |--| tools or test suites
                     +-----------------------+  |

  

This isn't a public library or API and it's very much focused on the needs of the X driver so there are some peculiarities in there. What it allows us though is a new wacom-record tool that can hook onto event nodes and print the events as they come out of the driver. So instead of having to restart X and move and click things, you get this:

$ ./builddir/wacom-record
wacom-record:
  version: 0.99.2
  git: xf86-input-wacom-0.99.2-17-g404dfd5a
  device:
    path: /dev/input/event6
    name: "Wacom Intuos Pro M Pen"
  events:
    - source: 0
      event: new-device
      name: "Wacom Intuos Pro M Pen"
      type: stylus
      capabilities:
        keys: true
        is-absolute: true
        is-direct-touch: false
        ntouches: 0
        naxes: 6
        axes:
          - {type: x           , range: [    0, 44800], resolution: 200000}
          - {type: y           , range: [    0, 29600], resolution: 200000}
          - {type: pressure    , range: [    0, 65536], resolution:     0}
          - {type: tilt_x      , range: [  -64,    63], resolution:    57}
          - {type: tilt_y      , range: [  -64,    63], resolution:    57}
          - {type: wheel       , range: [ -900,   899], resolution:     0}
    ...
    - source: 0
      mode: absolute
      event: motion
      mask: [ "x", "y", "pressure", "tilt-x", "tilt-y", "wheel" ]
      axes: { x: 28066, y: 17643, pressure:    0, tilt: [ -4, 56], rotation:   0, throttle:   0, wheel: -108, rings: [  0,   0] 
  

This is YAML which means we can process the output for comparison or just to search for things.

A tool to quickly analyse data makes for faster development iterations but it's still a far cry from reliable regression testing (and writing a test suite is a daunting task at best). But one nice thing about GObject is that it's accessible from other languages, including Python. So our test suite can be in Python, using pytest and all its capabilities, plus all the advantages Python has over C. Most of driver testing comes down to: create a uinput device, set up the driver with some options, push events through that device and verify they come out of the driver in the right sequence and format. I don't need C for that. So there's pull request sitting out there doing exactly that - adding a pytest test suite for a 20-year old X driver written in C. That this is a) possible and b) a lot less work than expected got me quite unreasonably excited. If you do have to maintain an old C library, maybe consider whether's possible doing the same because there's nothing like the warm fuzzy feeling a green tick on a CI pipeline gives you.

[1] As scholars of version numbers know, they make as much sense as your stereotypical uncle's facebook opinion, so why not.
[2] The Colombian GDP probably went up a bit

What's new in XI 2.4 - touchpad gestures

After a nine year hiatus, a new version of the X Input Protocol is out. Credit for the work goes to Povilas Kanapickas, who also implemented support for XI 2.4 in the various pieces of the stack [0]. So let's have a look.

X has had touch events since XI 2.2 (2012) but those were only really useful for direct touch devices (read: touchscreens). There were accommodations for indirect touch devices like touchpads but they were never used. The synaptics driver set the required bits for a while but it was dropped in 2015 because ... it was complicated to make use of and no-one seemed to actually use it anyway. Meanwhile, the rest of the world moved on and touchpad gestures are now prevalent. They've been standard in MacOS for ages, in Windows for almost ages and - with recent GNOME releases - now feature prominently on the Linux desktop as well. They have been part of libinput and the Wayland protocol for years (and even recently gained a new set of "hold" gestures). Meanwhile, X was left behind in the dust or mud, depending on your local climate.

XI 2.4 fixes this, it adds pinch and swipe gestures to the XI2 protocol and makes those available to supporting clients [2]. Notably here is that the interpretation of gestures is left to the driver [1]. The server takes the gestures and does the required state handling but otherwise has no decision into what constitutes a gesture. This is of course no different to e.g. 2-finger scrolling on a touchpad where the server just receives scroll events and passes them on accordingly.

XI 2.4 gesture events are quite similar to touch events in that they are processed as a sequence of begin/update/end with both types having their own event types. So the events you will receive are e.g. XIGesturePinchBegin or XIGestureSwipeUpdate. As with touch events, a client must select for all three (begin/update/end) on a window. Only one gesture can exist at any time, so if you are a multi-tasking octopus prepare to be disappointed.

Because gestures are tied to an indirect-touch device, the location they apply at is wherever the cursor is currently positioned. In that, they work similar to button presses, and passive grabs apply as expected too. So long-term the window manager will likely want a passive grab on the root window for swipe gestures while applications will implement pinch-to-zoom as you'd expect.

In terms of API there are no suprises. libXi 1.8 is the version to implement the new features and there we have a new XIGestureClassInfo returned by XIQueryDevice and of course the two events: XIGesturePinchEvent and XIGestureSwipeEvent. Grabbing is done via e.g. XIGrabSwipeGestureBegin, so for those of you with XI2 experience this will all look familiar. For those of you without - it's probably no longer worth investing time into becoming an XI2 expert.

Overall, it's a nice addition to the protocol and it will help getting the X server slightly closer to Wayland for a widely-used feature. Once GTK, mutter and all the other pieces in the stack are in place, it will just work for any (GTK) application that supports gestures under Wayland already. The same will be true for Qt I expect.

X server 21.1 will be out in a few weeks, xf86-input-libinput 1.2.0 is already out and so are xorgproto 2021.5 and libXi 1.8.

[0] In addition to taking on the Xorg release, so clearly there are no limits here
[1] More specifically: it's done by libinput since neither xf86-input-evdev nor xf86-input-synaptics will ever see gestures being implemented
[2] Hold gestures missed out on the various deadlines