linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] drm/gpuvm: Add a helper to check if two VA can be merged

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: <20250821141857.26721bd6@fedora>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 14:18:57 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
To: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: "Caterina Shablia" <caterina.shablia@...labora.com>, "Maarten Lankhorst"
 <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, "Maxime Ripard" <mripard@...nel.org>,
 "Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@...e.de>, "David Airlie"
 <airlied@...il.com>, "Simona Vetter" <simona@...ll.ch>, "Frank Binns"
 <frank.binns@...tec.com>, "Matt Coster" <matt.coster@...tec.com>, "Karol
 Herbst" <kherbst@...hat.com>, "Lyude Paul" <lyude@...hat.com>, "Steven
 Price" <steven.price@....com>, "Liviu Dudau" <liviu.dudau@....com>, "Lucas
 De Marchi" <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>, Thomas Hellström
 <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>, "Rodrigo Vivi"
 <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
 <intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <asahi@...ts.linux.dev>, "Asahi Lina"
 <lina@...hilina.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] drm/gpuvm: Add a helper to check if two VA can
 be merged

On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 21:06:50 +0200
"Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Mon Jul 7, 2025 at 9:00 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On Mon Jul 7, 2025 at 7:04 PM CEST, Caterina Shablia wrote:  
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c
> >> index 05978c5c38b1..dc3c2f906400 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c
> >> @@ -2098,12 +2098,48 @@ op_unmap_cb(const struct drm_gpuvm_ops *fn, void *priv,
> >>  	return fn->sm_step_unmap(&op, priv);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +static bool can_merge(struct drm_gpuvm *gpuvm, const struct drm_gpuva *a,
> >> +		      const struct drm_gpuva *b)
> >> +{
> >> +	/* Only GEM-based mappings can be merged, and they must point to
> >> +	 * the same GEM object.
> >> +	 */
> >> +	if (a->gem.obj != b->gem.obj || !a->gem.obj)
> >> +		return false;
> >> +
> >> +	/* Let's keep things simple for now and force all flags to match. */
> >> +	if (a->flags != b->flags)
> >> +		return false;  
> 
> Forgot to mention, this can include driver specific flags. How do we know from
> the generic code whether this condition makes sense? *At least* it would need to
> be documented.

You're right, it should have been:

	if ((a->flags & DRM_GPUVA_MERGEABLE_FLAGS_MASK) !=
	    (b->flags & DRM_GPUVA_MERGEABLE_FLAGS_MASK))
		return false;

with DRM_GPUVA_COMMON_FLAGS_MASK set to the set of flags that matter
when merging.

> 
> However, I think it would be better to provide an optional callback for drivers
> to check whether merge makes sense or not. This doesn't mean we need drivers to
> do those common checks, this can remain here in the common code.

Seems a bit premature to me. Again, if there's a need for drivers to add
extra checks we can always add a callback at this point, but until
this is the case, I'd rather stick to these common checks.