linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 05/12] netdev: netdevice devmem allocator

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: <b1476f8e-1b4b-497a-9e80-aff679ca8b4b@davidwei.uk>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2023 17:00:39 -0800
From:   David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@...gle.com>,
        Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@...gle.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Kaiyuan Zhang <kaiyuanz@...gle.com>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 05/12] netdev: netdevice devmem allocator

On 2023-11-07 14:55, David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/7/23 3:10 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:44 PM David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/5/23 7:44 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>>> index eeeda849115c..1c351c138a5b 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>>> @@ -843,6 +843,9 @@ struct netdev_dmabuf_binding {
>>>>  };
>>>>
>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_DMA_SHARED_BUFFER
>>>> +struct page_pool_iov *
>>>> +netdev_alloc_devmem(struct netdev_dmabuf_binding *binding);
>>>> +void netdev_free_devmem(struct page_pool_iov *ppiov);
>>>
>>> netdev_{alloc,free}_dmabuf?
>>>
>>
>> Can do.
>>
>>> I say that because a dmabuf can be host memory, at least I am not aware
>>> of a restriction that a dmabuf is device memory.
>>>
>>
>> In my limited experience dma-buf is generally device memory, and
>> that's really its use case. CONFIG_UDMABUF is a driver that mocks
>> dma-buf with a memfd which I think is used for testing. But I can do
>> the rename, it's more clear anyway, I think.
> 
> config UDMABUF
>         bool "userspace dmabuf misc driver"
>         default n
>         depends on DMA_SHARED_BUFFER
>         depends on MEMFD_CREATE || COMPILE_TEST
>         help
>           A driver to let userspace turn memfd regions into dma-bufs.
>           Qemu can use this to create host dmabufs for guest framebuffers.
> 
> 
> Qemu is just a userspace process; it is no way a special one.
> 
> Treating host memory as a dmabuf should radically simplify the io_uring
> extension of this set. That the io_uring set needs to dive into
> page_pools is just wrong - complicating the design and code and pushing
> io_uring into a realm it does not need to be involved in.

I think our io_uring proposal will already be vastly simplified once we
rebase onto Kuba's page pool memory provider API. Using udmabuf means
depending on a driver designed for testing, vs io_uring's registered
buffers API that's been tried and tested.

I don't have an intuitive understanding of the trade offs yet, and would
need to try out udmabuf and compare vs say using our own page pool
memory provider.

> 
> Most (all?) of this patch set can work with any memory; only device
> memory is unreadable.
> 
>