linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] iio: core: Add new DMABUF interface infrastructure

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]

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:06:58 +0100
From: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
To: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>, 
	Jonathan Cameron
	 <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Sumit Semwal
 <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,  Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet
 <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,  linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-media@...r.kernel.org,  dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, Nuno Sá
 <noname.nuno@...il.com>, Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] iio: core: Add new DMABUF interface
 infrastructure

Hi Christian,

Le lundi 29 janvier 2024 à 13:52 +0100, Christian König a écrit :
> Am 27.01.24 um 17:50 schrieb Jonathan Cameron:
> > > > > +	iio_buffer_dmabuf_put(attach);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +out_dmabuf_put:
> > > > > +	dma_buf_put(dmabuf);
> > > > As below. Feels like a __free(dma_buf_put) bit of magic would
> > > > be a
> > > > nice to have.
> > > I'm working on the patches right now, just one quick question.
> > > 
> > > Having a __free(dma_buf_put) requires that dma_buf_put is first
> > > "registered" as a freeing function using DEFINE_FREE() in
> > > <linux/dma-
> > > buf.h>, which has not been done yet.
> > > 
> > > That would mean carrying a dma-buf specific patch in your tree,
> > > are you
> > > OK with that?
> > Needs an ACK from appropriate maintainer, but otherwise I'm fine
> > doing
> > so.  Alternative is to circle back to this later after this code is
> > upstream.
> 
> Separate patches for that please, the autocleanup feature is so new
> that 
> I'm not 100% convinced that everything works out smoothly from the
> start.

Separate patches is a given, did you mean outside this patchset?
Because I can send a separate patchset that introduces scope-based
management for dma_fence and dma_buf, but then it won't have users.

Cheers,
-Paul