Message-ID: <ZjoJRs0Svrb9ELDu@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 12:58:14 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, keescook@...omium.org,
	axboe@...nel.dk, christian.koenig@....com,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
	jack@...e.cz, laura@...bott.name, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, minhquangbui99@...il.com,
	sumit.semwal@...aro.org,
	syzbot+045b454ab35fd82a35fb@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
	syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] epoll: try to be a _bit_ better about file lifetimes

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 04:46:54PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 02:47:23PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Sun, May 05, 2024 at 01:53:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Sun, 5 May 2024 at 13:30, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 0.      special-cased ->f_count rule for ->poll() is a wart and it's
> > > > better to get rid of it.
> > > >
> > > > 1.      fs/eventpoll.c is a steaming pile of shit and I'd be glad to see
> > > > git rm taken to it.  Short of that, by all means, let's grab reference
> > > > in there around the call of vfs_poll() (see (0)).
> > > 
> > > Agreed on 0/1.
> > > 
> > > > 2.      having ->poll() instances grab extra references to file passed
> > > > to them is not something that should be encouraged; there's a plenty
> > > > of potential problems, and "caller has it pinned, so we are fine with
> > > > grabbing extra refs" is nowhere near enough to eliminate those.
> > > 
> > > So it's not clear why you hate it so much, since those extra
> > > references are totally normal in all the other VFS paths.
> > > 
> > > I mean, they are perhaps not the *common* case, but we have a lot of
> > > random get_file() calls sprinkled around in various places when you
> > > end up passing a file descriptor off to some asynchronous operation
> > > thing.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I think most of them tend to be special operations (eg the tty
> > > TIOCCONS ioctl to redirect the console), but it's not like vfs_ioctl()
> > > is *that* different from vfs_poll. Different operation, not somehow
> > > "one is more special than the other".
> > > 
> > > cachefiles and backing-file does it for regular IO, and drop it at IO
> > > completion - not that different from what dma-buf does. It's in
> > > ->read_iter() rather than ->poll(), but again: different operations,
> > > but not "one of them is somehow fundamentally different".
> > > 
> > > > 3.      dma-buf uses of get_file() are probably safe (epoll shite aside),
> > > > but they do look fishy.  That has nothing to do with epoll.
> > > 
> > > Now, what dma-buf basically seems to do is to avoid ref-counting its
> > > own fundamental data structure, and replaces that by refcounting the
> > > 'struct file' that *points* to it instead.
> > > 
> > > And it is a bit odd, but it actually makes some amount of sense,
> > > because then what it passes around is that file pointer (and it allows
> > > passing it around from user space *as* that file).
> > > 
> > > And honestly, if you look at why it then needs to add its refcount to
> > > it all, it actually makes sense.  dma-bufs have this notion of
> > > "fences" that are basically completion points for the asynchronous
> > > DMA. Doing a "poll()" operation will add a note to the fence to get
> > > that wakeup when it's done.
> > > 
> > > And yes, logically it takes a ref to the "struct dma_buf", but because
> > > of how the lifetime of the dma_buf is associated with the lifetime of
> > > the 'struct file', that then turns into taking a ref on the file.
> > > 
> > > Unusual? Yes. But not illogical. Not obviously broken. Tying the
> > > lifetime of the dma_buf to the lifetime of a file that is passed along
> > > makes _sense_ for that use.
> > > 
> > > I'm sure dma-bufs could add another level of refcounting on the
> > > 'struct dma_buf' itself, and not make it be 1:1 with the file, but
> > > it's not clear to me what the advantage would really be, or why it
> > > would be wrong to re-use a refcount that is already there.
> > 
> > So there is generally another refcount, because dma_buf is just the
> > cross-driver interface to some kind of real underlying buffer object from
> > the various graphics related subsystems we have.
> > 
> > And since it's a pure file based api thing that ceases to serve any
> > function once the fd/file is gone we tied all the dma_buf refcounting to
> > the refcount struct file already maintains. But the underlying buffer
> > object can easily outlive the dma_buf, and over the lifetime of an
> > underlying buffer object you might actually end up creating different
> > dma_buf api wrappers for it (but at least in drm we guarantee there's at
> > most one, hence why vmwgfx does the atomic_inc_unless_zero trick, which I
> > don't particularly like and isn't really needed).
> > 
> > But we could add another refcount, it just means we have 3 of those then
> > when only really 2 are needed.
> 
> Fwiw, the TTM thing described upthread and in the other thread really
> tries hard to work around the dma_buf == file lifetime choice by hooking
> into the dma-buf specific release function so it can access the dmabuf
> and then the file. All that seems like a pretty error prone thing to me.
> So a separate refcount for dma_buf wouldn't be the worst as that would
> allow that TTM thing to benefit and remove that nasty hacking into your
> generic dma_buf ops. But maybe I'm the only one who sees it that way and
> I'm certainly not familiar enough with dma-buf.

So the tricky part is the uniqueness requirement drm has for buffer
objects (and hence dma_buf wrappers), which together with the refcounting
makes dma_buf quite tricky:

- dma_buf needs to hold some reference onto the underlying object, or it
  wont work

- but you're not allowed to just create a new dma_buf every time someone
  exports an underlying object to a dma_buf, because that would break the
  uniqueness requirement. Which means the underlying object must also hold
  some kind of reference to its dma_buf, if it exists. So that on buffer
  export it can just increment the refcount for that and return it,
  instead of creating a new one.

Which would be a reference loop that never gets freed, so you need one of
two tricks:

- Either a weak reference, i.e. just a pointer plus
  atomic_inc_unless_zero trickery like ttm does. Splitting that refcount
  into more refcounts doesn't fundamentally solve the problem, it just
  adds even more refcounts.

- Or you do what all other drm drivers do in drm_prime.c do and careful
  clean up the dma_buf re-export cache when the userspace references (but
  not all kernel internal ones) disappear, to unbreak that reference loop.
  This needs to be done with extreme care and took a lot of screaming to
  get right, because if you have a race you might end up breaking the
  uniqueness requirement and have two dma_buf floating around.

So neither of these solutions really are simple, but I agree with you that
the atomic_inc_unless_zero trickery is less simple. It's definitely not
cool that it's done by digging around in struct file internals.
-Sima
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

Powered by blists - more mailing lists