linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] usb: gadget: functionfs: Add DMABUF import interface

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: <ZZ1Dx1Jqbi61_Afb@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 14:01:59 +0100
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
	Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <andrzej.p@...labora.com>,
	linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
	Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] usb: gadget: functionfs: Add DMABUF import
 interface

On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 12:06:58PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> Hi Daniel / Sima,
> 
> Le lundi 08 janvier 2024 à 20:19 +0100, Daniel Vetter a écrit :
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 05:27:33PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > Le lundi 08 janvier 2024 à 16:29 +0100, Daniel Vetter a écrit :
> > > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 03:21:21PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > > > Hi Daniel (Sima?),
> > > > > 
> > > > > Le lundi 08 janvier 2024 à 13:39 +0100, Daniel Vetter a écrit :
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 01:00:55PM +0100, Paul Cercueil
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > +static void ffs_dmabuf_signal_done(struct ffs_dma_fence
> > > > > > > *dma_fence, int ret)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	struct ffs_dmabuf_priv *priv = dma_fence->priv;
> > > > > > > +	struct dma_fence *fence = &dma_fence->base;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +	dma_fence_get(fence);
> > > > > > > +	fence->error = ret;
> > > > > > > +	dma_fence_signal(fence);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +	dma_buf_unmap_attachment(priv->attach, dma_fence-
> > > > > > > >sgt,
> > > > > > > dma_fence->dir);
> > > > > > > +	dma_fence_put(fence);
> > > > > > > +	ffs_dmabuf_put(priv->attach);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So this can in theory take the dma_resv lock, and if the usb
> > > > > > completion
> > > > > > isn't an unlimited worker this could hold up completion of
> > > > > > future
> > > > > > dma_fence, resulting in a deadlock.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Needs to be checked how usb works, and if stalling
> > > > > > indefinitely
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > io_complete callback can hold up the usb stack you need to:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - drop a dma_fence_begin/end_signalling annotations in here
> > > > > > - pull out the unref stuff into a separate preallocated
> > > > > > worker
> > > > > > (or at
> > > > > >   least the final unrefs for ffs_dma_buf).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Only ffs_dmabuf_put() can attempt to take the dma_resv and
> > > > > would
> > > > > have
> > > > > to be in a worker, right? Everything else would be inside the
> > > > > dma_fence_begin/end_signalling() annotations?
> > > > 
> > > > Yup. Also I noticed that unlike the iio patches you don't have
> > > > the
> > > > dma_buf_unmap here in the completion path (or I'm blind?), which
> > > > helps a
> > > > lot with avoiding trouble.
> > > 
> > > They both call dma_buf_unmap_attachment() in the "signal done"
> > > callback, the only difference I see is that it is called after the
> > > dma_fence_put() in the iio patches, while it's called before
> > > dma_fence_put() here.
> > 
> > I was indeed blind ...
> > 
> > So the trouble is this wont work because:
> > - dma_buf_unmap_attachment() requires dma_resv_lock. This is a
> > somewhat
> >   recent-ish change from 47e982d5195d ("dma-buf: Move
> >   dma_buf_map_attachment() to dynamic locking specification"), so
> > maybe
> >   old kernel or you don't have full lockdep enabled to get the right
> >   splat.
> > 
> > - dma_fence critical section forbids dma_resv_lock
> > 
> > Which means you need to move this out, but then there's the potential
> > cache management issue. Which current gpu drivers just kinda ignore
> > because it doesn't matter for current use-case, they all cache the
> > mapping
> > for about as long as the attachment exists. You might want to do the
> > same,
> > unless that somehow breaks a use-case you have, I have no idea about
> > that.
> > If something breaks with unmap_attachment moved out of the fence
> > handling
> > then I guess it's high time to add separate cache-management only to
> > dma_buf (and that's probably going to be quite some wiring up, not
> > sure
> > even how easy that would be to do nor what exactly the interface
> > should
> > look like).
> 
> Ok. Then I'll just cache the mapping for now, I think.

Yeah I think that's simplest. I did ponder a bit and I don't think it'd be
too much pain to add the cache-management functions for device
attachments/mappings. But it would be quite some typing ...
-Sima
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch