linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

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: <20260119162424.GE961572@ziepe.ca>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 12:24:24 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
	Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
	Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>,
	Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>,
	Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@...omium.org>,
	Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@...il.com>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex@...zbot.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate
 shared buffers

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 10:27:00AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> this sounds like it's not just undocumented but also in some cases
> unimplemented. The xe driver for one doesn't expect move_notify() to be
> called on pinned buffers, so if that is indeed going to be part of the
> dma-buf protocol,  wouldn't support for that need to be advertised by
> the importer?

Can you clarify this?

I don't see xe's importer calling dma_buf_pin() or dma_buf_attach()
outside of tests? It's importer implements a fully functional looking
dynamic attach with move_notify()?

I see the exporer is checking for pinned and then not calling
move_notify - is that what you mean?

When I looked through all the importers only RDMA obviously didn't
support move_notify on pinned buffers.

Jason