Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 23 Jan 2019 12:58:51 +0100
Message-ID: <s5h4l9z4mbo.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
        arnd@arndb.de, keescook@chromium.org, bgoswami@codeaurora.org,
        sr@denx.de, gustavo@embeddedor.com, philburk@google.com,
        willy@infradead.org, mchehab+samsung@kernel.org, sboyd@kernel.org,
        vkoul@kernel.org, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>,
        daniel.thompson@linaro.org, leo.yan@linaro.org,
        mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org,
        anna-maria@linutronix.de, corbet@lwn.net, jmiller@neverware.com,
        ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, joe@perches.com,
        o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp, colyli@suse.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ALSA: core: Add DMA share buffer support
In-Reply-To: <20190122202535.GK7579@sirena.org.uk>
References: <290f6d3a5fe288b87480cc5fa12c5139728daeca.1547787189.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org>
        <81e894ba-acad-2fd4-996d-8d35edd8825a@perex.cz>
        <20190118190805.GF6260@sirena.org.uk>
        <s5hzhrxzrez.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <20190121124053.GA12679@sirena.org.uk>
        <f278bb69-7df0-4d14-5e4f-9bcb57d7f2b6@perex.cz>
        <20190122202535.GK7579@sirena.org.uk>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka)
 FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/25.3
 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 21:25:35 +0100,
Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:15:43PM +0100, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> > Dne 21.1.2019 v 13:40 Mark Brown napsal(a):
> 
> > > It was the bit about adding more extended permission control that I was
> > > worried about there, not the initial O_APPEND bit.  Indeed the O_APPEND
> > > bit sounds like it might also work from the base buffer sharing point of
> > > view, I have to confess I'd not heard of that feature before (it didn't
> > > come up in the discussion when Eric raised this in Prague).
> 
> > With permissions, I meant to make possible to restrict the file
> > descriptor operations (ioctls) for the depending task (like access to
> > the DMA buffer, synchronize it for the non-coherent platforms and maybe
> > read/write the actual position, delay etc.). It should be relatively
> > easy to implement using the snd_pcm_file structure.
> 
> Right, that's what I understood you to mean.  If you want to have a
> policy saying "it's OK to export a PCM file descriptor if it's only got
> permissions X and Y" the security module is going to need to know about
> the mechanism for setting those permissions.  With dma_buf that's all a
> bit easier as there's less new stuff, though I've no real idea how much
> of a big deal that actually is.

There are many ways to implement such a thing, yeah.  If we'd need an
implementation that is done solely in the sound driver layer, I can
imagine to introduce either a new ioctl or an open flag (like O_EXCL)
to specify the restricted sharing.  That is, a kind of master / slave
model where only the master is allowed to manipulate the stream while
the slave can mmap, read/write and get status.


thanks,

Takashi