Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:24:56 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     christian.koenig@amd.com
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] Changing vma->vm_file in dma_buf_mmap()
Message-ID: <20200917152456.GH8409@ziepe.ca>
References: <aa953b09-53b1-104b-dc4b-156ad8a75e62@gmail.com>
 <CAKMK7uHJNRzCJfWVSmMrLmGXE0qo+OCXiMd+zPTOkeG2pnVrmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8d8693db-a3f0-4f5f-3e32-57d23ca620f8@amd.com>
 <CAKMK7uE=UqZD3PVC8XZAXrgGH-VsUF_-YQD3MLV8KK1kpxO4yQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200917113110.GE8409@ziepe.ca>
 <6fd74b84-959c-8b3b-c27b-e9fbf66396c7@gmail.com>
 <20200917121858.GF8409@ziepe.ca>
 <d82f08ee-2dec-18e8-fb06-d26f18ed777a@gmail.com>
 <20200917143551.GG8409@ziepe.ca>
 <5b330920-c789-fac7-e9b1-49f3bc1097a8@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <5b330920-c789-fac7-e9b1-49f3bc1097a8@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 04:54:44PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 17.09.20 um 16:35 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 02:24:29PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 17.09.20 um 14:18 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 02:03:48PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > > > Am 17.09.20 um 13:31 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:09:12AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yeah, but it doesn't work when forwarding from the drm chardev to the
> > > > > > > dma-buf on the importer side, since you'd need a ton of different
> > > > > > > address spaces. And you still rely on the core code picking up your
> > > > > > > pgoff mangling, which feels about as risky to me as the vma file
> > > > > > > pointer wrangling - if it's not consistently applied the reverse map
> > > > > > > is toast and unmap_mapping_range doesn't work correctly for our needs.
> > > > > > I would think the pgoff has to be translated at the same time the
> > > > > > vm->vm_file is changed?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The owner of the dma_buf should have one virtual address space and FD,
> > > > > > all its dma bufs should be linked to it, and all pgoffs translated to
> > > > > > that space.
> > > > > Yeah, that is exactly like amdgpu is doing it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Going to document that somehow when I'm done with TTM cleanups.
> > > > BTW, while people are looking at this, is there a way to go from a VMA
> > > > to a dma_buf that owns it?
> > > Only a driver specific one.
> > Sounds OK
> > 
> > > For TTM drivers vma->vm_private_data points to the buffer object. Not sure
> > > about the drivers using GEM only.
> > Why are drivers in control of the vma? I would think dma_buf should be
> > the vma owner. IIRC module lifetime correctness essentially hings on
> > the module owner of the struct file
> 
> Because the page fault handling is completely driver specific.
>
> We could install some DMA-buf vmops, but that would just be another layer of
> redirection.

If it is already taking a page fault I'm not sure the extra function
call indirection is going to be a big deal. Having a uniform VMA
sounds saner than every driver custom rolling something.

When I unwound a similar mess in RDMA all the custom VMA stuff in the
drivers turned out to be generally buggy, at least.

Is vma->vm_file->private_data universally a dma_buf pointer at least?

> > So, user VA -> find_vma -> dma_buf object -> dma_buf operations on the
> > memory it represents
> 
> Ah, yes we are already doing this in amdgpu as well. But only for DMA-bufs
> or more generally buffers which are mmaped by this driver instance.

So there is no general dma_buf service? That is a real bummer

Jason