linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] mm/vma: add support for peer to peer to device vma

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:52:13 -0700
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Christian Koenig <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] mm/vma: add support for peer to peer to device
 vma



On 2019-01-30 2:50 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 02:01:35PM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
>> And I feel the GUP->SGL->DMA flow should still be what we are aiming
>> for. Even if we need a special GUP for special pages, and a special DMA
>> map; and the SGL still has to be homogenous....
> 
> *shrug* so what if the special GUP called a VMA op instead of
> traversing the VMA PTEs today? Why does it really matter? It could
> easily change to a struct page flow tomorrow..

Well it's so that it's composable. We want the SGL->DMA side to work for
APIs from kernel space and not have to run a completely different flow
for kernel drivers than from userspace memory.

For GUP to do a special VMA traversal it would now need to return
something besides struct pages which means no SGL and it means a
completely different DMA mapping call.
> Would you feel better if this also came along with a:
> 
>   struct dma_sg_table *sgl_dma_map_user(struct device *dma_device, 
>              void __user *prt, size_t len)

That seems like a nice API. But certainly the implementation would need
to use existing dma_map or pci_p2pdma_map calls, or whatever as part of
it...

,
> flow which returns a *DMA MAPPED* sgl that does not have struct page
> pointers as another interface?
> 
> We can certainly call an API like this from RDMA for non-ODP MRs.
> 
> Eliminating the page pointers also eliminates the __iomem
> problem. However this sgl object is not copyable or accessible from
> the CPU, so the caller must be sure it doesn't need CPU access when
> using this API. 

We actually stopped caring about the __iomem problem. We are working
under the assumption that pages returned by devm_memremap_pages() can be
accessed as normal RAM and does not need the __iomem designation. The
main problem now is that code paths need to know to use pci_p2pdma_map
or not. And in theory this could be pushed into regular dma_map
implementations but we'd have to get it into all of them which is a pain.

Logan