linux-kernel - Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] Changing vma->vm_file in dma_buf_mmap()

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Date:   Wed, 16 Sep 2020 17:31:31 +0200
From:   Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Cc:     Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] Changing vma->vm_file in dma_buf_mmap()

Am 16.09.20 um 17:24 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:14 PM Christian König
> <christian.koenig@....com> wrote:
>> Am 16.09.20 um 16:07 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:53:59AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>
>>>> But within the driver, we generally need thousands of these, and that
>>>> tends to bring fd exhaustion problems with it. That's why all the private
>>>> buffer objects which aren't shared with other process or other drivers are
>>>> handles only valid for a specific fd instance of the drm chardev (each
>>>> open gets their own namespace), and only for ioctls done on that chardev.
>>>> And for mmap we assign fake (but unique across all open fd on it) offsets
>>>> within the overall chardev. Hence all the pgoff mangling and re-mangling.
>>> Are they still unique struct files? Just without a fdno?
>> Yes, exactly.
> Not entirely, since dma-buf happened after drm chardev, so for that
> historical reason the underlying struct file is shared, since it's the
> drm chardev. But since that's per-device we don't have a problem in
> practice with different vm_ops, since those are also per-device. But
> yeah we could fish out some entirely hidden per-object struct file if
> that's required for some mm internal reasons.

Hui? Ok that is just the handling in i915, isn't it?

As far as I know we create an unique struct file for each DMA-buf.

Regards,
Christian.

> -Daniel
>
>>>> Hence why we'd like to be able to forward aliasing mappings and adjust the
>>>> file and pgoff, while hopefully everything keeps working. I thought this
>>>> would work, but Christian noticed it doesn't really.
>>> It seems reasonable to me that the dma buf should be the owner of the
>>> VMA, otherwise like you say, there is a big mess attaching the custom
>>> vma ops and what not to the proper dma buf.
>>>
>>> I don't see anything obviously against this in mmap_region() - why did
>>> Chritian notice it doesn't really work?
>> To clarify I think this might work.
>>
>> I just had the same "Is that legal?", "What about security?", etc..
>> questions you raised as well.
>>
>> It seems like a source of trouble so I thought better ask somebody more
>> familiar with that.
>>
>> Christian.
>>
>>> Jason
>> _______________________________________________
>> dri-devel mailing list
>> dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>
>

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