linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for vgpu

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: <Y8m+xBhGCa3kgcO2@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 17:05:56 -0500
From:   Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>
To:     Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     Deepak R Varma <drv@...lo.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Saurabh Singh Sengar <ssengar@...rosoft.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Praveen Kumar <kumarpraveen@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        <intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for
 vgpu_status debug attributes

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 09:26:20AM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> On 2023.01.18 11:44:55 -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:18:11AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 01:44:46PM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> > > > > On 2023.01.10 13:49:57 -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > > > > > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > > > > > > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > > > > > > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > > > > > > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > > > > > > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > > > > > > wrapping at runtime.
> > > > > > > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > > > > > > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead.  The
> > > > > > > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > > > > > > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > > > > > > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > > > > > > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > > > > > > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@...lo.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
> > > > > > But anyways,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
> > > > > > to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > yeah, they're fine with me, feel free to apply them directly.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Acked-by: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately I got some conflicts when trying to apply on drm-intel-next.
> > > > 
> > > > We probably need a new version, and probably through gvt branches it
> > > > will be easier to handle conflicts if they appear.
> > > 
> > > Hello Rodrigo,
> > > Sure. I will send in a new version. I am current using linux-next git repo as my
> > > remote origin [tag 20230113]. Are there any specific instruction/location from
> > > where I should access the gvt branch?
> > 
> > https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux.git
> > 
> > but with the linux-next your patch is probably right for them.
> > 
> 
> yeah, I think so as currently from last pull request I don't have
> other updates in gvt tree, maybe it's just d-i-n hasn't included
> recent gvt change.
> 
> I saw Deepak sent a new one, feel free to apply. Let me know if
> there's still any issue.

It still doesn't apply in drm-intel-next.
Could you please take it through your branch?

> 
> thanks!
> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > > > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > > > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > > > > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  /**
> > > > > > >   * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > > > > > > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> > > > > > >  			    &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > > > > > >  	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > > >  				   &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > > > > > > -	debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > > > -			    &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > > > > +	debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > > > +				   &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  /**
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > 2.34.1
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > >