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:   Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:47:17 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@hisilicon.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>,
        linux-accelerators@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com, liguozhu@hisilicon.com,
        Sihang Chen <chensihang1@hisilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] uacce: Add uacce_ctrl misc device
Message-ID: <20210125154717.GW4605@ziepe.ca>
References: <1611563696-235269-1-git-send-email-wangzhou1@hisilicon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1611563696-235269-1-git-send-email-wangzhou1@hisilicon.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:34:56PM +0800, Zhou Wang wrote:

> +static int uacce_pin_page(struct uacce_pin_container *priv,
> +			  struct uacce_pin_address *addr)
> +{
> +	unsigned int flags = FOLL_FORCE | FOLL_WRITE;
> +	unsigned long first, last, nr_pages;
> +	struct page **pages;
> +	struct pin_pages *p;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	first = (addr->addr & PAGE_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +	last = ((addr->addr + addr->size - 1) & PAGE_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +	nr_pages = last - first + 1;
> +
> +	pages = vmalloc(nr_pages * sizeof(struct page *));
> +	if (!pages)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	p = kzalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!p) {
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +		goto free;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = pin_user_pages_fast(addr->addr & PAGE_MASK, nr_pages,
> +				  flags | FOLL_LONGTERM, pages);

This needs to copy the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK and can_do_mlock() stuff from
other places, like ib_umem_get

> +	ret = xa_err(xa_store(&priv->array, p->first, p, GFP_KERNEL));

And this is really weird, I don't think it makes sense to make handles
for DMA based on the starting VA.

> +static int uacce_unpin_page(struct uacce_pin_container *priv,
> +			    struct uacce_pin_address *addr)
> +{
> +	unsigned long first, last, nr_pages;
> +	struct pin_pages *p;
> +
> +	first = (addr->addr & PAGE_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +	last = ((addr->addr + addr->size - 1) & PAGE_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +	nr_pages = last - first + 1;
> +
> +	/* find pin_pages */
> +	p = xa_load(&priv->array, first);
> +	if (!p)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	if (p->nr_pages != nr_pages)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	/* unpin */
> +	unpin_user_pages(p->pages, p->nr_pages);

And unpinning without guaranteeing there is no ongoing DMA is really
weird

Are you abusing this in conjunction with a SVA scheme just to prevent
page motion? Why wasn't mlock good enough?

Jason