linux-kernel - Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH v3 1/2] habanalabs: define uAPI to export FD for DMA-BUF

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]

Message-ID: <CAFCwf10GmBjeJAFp0uJsMLiv-8HWAR==RqV9ZdMQz+iW9XWdTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 15:04:30 +0300
From:   Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@...il.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com>,
        Gal Pressman <galpress@...zon.com>, sleybo@...zon.com,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        "moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Tomer Tayar <ttayar@...ana.ai>,
        amd-gfx list <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        "open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH v3 1/2] habanalabs: define uAPI to export
 FD for DMA-BUF

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:01 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:42:27AM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 9:37 AM Christian König
> > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Am 22.06.21 um 01:29 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:24:16PM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Another thing I want to emphasize is that we are doing p2p only
> > > >> through the export/import of the FD. We do *not* allow the user to
> > > >> mmap the dma-buf as we do not support direct IO. So there is no access
> > > >> to these pages through the userspace.
> > > > Arguably mmaping the memory is a better choice, and is the direction
> > > > that Logan's series goes in. Here the use of DMABUF was specifically
> > > > designed to allow hitless revokation of the memory, which this isn't
> > > > even using.
> > >
> > > The major problem with this approach is that DMA-buf is also used for
> > > memory which isn't CPU accessible.
>
> That isn't an issue here because the memory is only intended to be
> used with P2P transfers so it must be CPU accessible.
>
> > > That was one of the reasons we didn't even considered using the mapping
> > > memory approach for GPUs.
>
> Well, now we have DEVICE_PRIVATE memory that can meet this need
> too.. Just nobody has wired it up to hmm_range_fault()
>
> > > > So you are taking the hit of very limited hardware support and reduced
> > > > performance just to squeeze into DMABUF..
> >
> > Thanks Jason for the clarification, but I honestly prefer to use
> > DMA-BUF at the moment.
> > It gives us just what we need (even more than what we need as you
> > pointed out), it is *already* integrated and tested in the RDMA
> > subsystem, and I'm feeling comfortable using it as I'm somewhat
> > familiar with it from my AMD days.
>
> You still have the issue that this patch is doing all of this P2P
> stuff wrong - following the already NAK'd AMD approach.

Could you please point me exactly to the lines of code that are wrong
in your opinion ?
I find it hard to understand from your statement what exactly you
think that we are doing wrong.
The implementation is found in the second patch in this patch-set.

Thanks,
Oded
>
> > I'll go and read Logan's patch-set to see if that will work for us in
> > the future. Please remember, as Daniel said, we don't have struct page
> > backing our device memory, so if that is a requirement to connect to
> > Logan's work, then I don't think we will want to do it at this point.
>
> It is trivial to get the struct page for a PCI BAR.
>
> Jason