linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] dma-buf: Document RDMA non-ODP invalidate

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: <7cfe0495-f654-4f9d-8194-fa5717eeafff@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 10:17:16 +0100
From: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
 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>,
 Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>,
 Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
 Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
 Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
 Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>, Alex Williamson <alex@...zbot.org>,
 Ankit Agrawal <ankita@...dia.com>,
 Vivek Kasireddy <vivek.kasireddy@...el.com>, 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 v3 3/7] dma-buf: Document RDMA non-ODP
 invalidate_mapping() special case

On 1/21/26 10:14, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 09:59:59AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
>> On 1/20/26 15:07, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
>>>
>>> The .invalidate_mapping() callback is documented as optional, yet it
>>> effectively became mandatory whenever importer_ops were provided. This
>>> led to cases where RDMA non-ODP code had to supply an empty stub just to
>>> provide allow_peer2peer.
>>>
>>> Document this behavior by creating a dedicated export for the
>>> dma_buf_unsupported_invalidate_mappings() function. This function is
>>> intended solely for the RDMA non-ODP case and must not be used by any
>>> other dma-buf importer.
>>>
>>> This makes it possible to rely on a valid .invalidate_mappings()
>>> callback to determine whether an importer supports revocation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c             | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>  drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c | 11 +----------
>>>  include/linux/dma-buf.h               |  4 +++-
>>>  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
>>> index cd3b60ce4863..c4fa35034b92 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
>>> @@ -1238,6 +1238,20 @@ void dma_buf_unmap_attachment_unlocked(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach,
>>>  }
>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_buf_unmap_attachment_unlocked, "DMA_BUF");
>>>  
>>> +/*
>>> + * This function shouldn't be used by anyone except RDMA non-ODP case.
>>> + * The reason to it is UAPI mistake where dma-buf was exported to the
>>> + * userspace without knowing that .invalidate_mappings() can be called
>>> + * for pinned memory too.
>>> + *
>>> + * This warning shouldn't be seen in real production scenario.
>>> + */
>>> +void dma_buf_unsupported_invalidate_mappings(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>>> +{
>>> +	pr_warn("Invalidate callback should not be called when memory is pinned\n");
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES(dma_buf_unsupported_invalidate_mappings, "ib_uverbs");
>>> +
>>
>> Well that is exactly the opposite of what I had in mind.
>>
>> The RDMA non-ODP case should explicitly not provide an invalidate_mappings callback, but only the dma_buf_attach_ops with allow_peer2peer set to true.
>>
>> This is done to explicitly note that RDMA non-ODP can't do invalidation's.
> 
> We want to achieve two goals:
> 1. Provide a meaningful warning to developers, rather than failing later
>    because dma_buf_move_notify() was called on this problematic imported dma-buf.
> 2. Require all users to supply a valid .invalidate_mapping().

Nope, that is something I would reject. invalidate_mappings must stay optional.

> 
> If I allow empty .invalidate_mapping(), this check will go too:

Correct, that is the whole idea.

>    932 struct dma_buf_attachment *
>    933 dma_buf_dynamic_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct device *dev,
>    934                        const struct dma_buf_attach_ops *importer_ops,
>    935                        void *importer_priv)
> ...
>    943         if (WARN_ON(importer_ops && !importer_ops->invalidate_mappings))
>    944                 return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> 
> And it is important part of dma-buf.

No, as far as I can see that is what we try to avoid.

The whole idea is to make invalidate_mappings truly optional.

Regards,
Christian.

> 
> Thanks