Re: [RFC 00/12] io_uring dmabuf read/write support

Re: [RFC 00/12] io_uring dmabuf read/write support

[Christian König]

On 03.07.25 16:23, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> [Note: it would be really useful to Cc all relevant maintainers]
> 
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 04:10:27PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> This series implements it for read/write io_uring requests. The uAPI
>> looks similar to normal registered buffers, the user will need to
>> register a dmabuf in io_uring first and then use it as any other
>> registered buffer. On registration the user also specifies a file
>> to map the dmabuf for.
> 
> Just commenting from the in-kernel POV here, where the interface
> feels wrong.
> 
> You can't just expose 'the DMA device' up file operations, because
> there can be and often is more than one.  Similarly stuffing a
> dma_addr_t into an iovec is rather dangerous.
> 
> The model that should work much better is to have file operations
> to attach to / detach from a dma_buf, and then have an iter that
> specifies a dmabuf and offsets into.  That way the code behind the
> file operations can forward the attachment to all the needed
> devices (including more/less while it remains attached to the file)
> and can pick the right dma address for each device.
> 
> I also remember some discussion that new dma-buf importers should
> use the dynamic imported model for long-term imports, but as I'm
> everything but an expert in that area I'll let the dma-buf folks
> speak.

Completely correct.

As long as you don't have a really good explanation and some mechanism to prevent abuse long term pinning of DMA-bufs should be avoided.

Regards,
Christian.

Re: [RFC 00/12] io_uring dmabuf read/write support

[Pavel Begunkov]

On 7/3/25 15:23, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> [Note: it would be really useful to Cc all relevant maintainers]

Will do next time

> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 04:10:27PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> This series implements it for read/write io_uring requests. The uAPI
>> looks similar to normal registered buffers, the user will need to
>> register a dmabuf in io_uring first and then use it as any other
>> registered buffer. On registration the user also specifies a file
>> to map the dmabuf for.
> 
> Just commenting from the in-kernel POV here, where the interface
> feels wrong.
> 
> You can't just expose 'the DMA device' up file operations, because
> there can be and often is more than one.  Similarly stuffing a
> dma_addr_t into an iovec is rather dangerous.
> 
> The model that should work much better is to have file operations
> to attach to / detach from a dma_buf, and then have an iter that
> specifies a dmabuf and offsets into.  That way the code behind the
> file operations can forward the attachment to all the needed
> devices (including more/less while it remains attached to the file)
> and can pick the right dma address for each device.

By "iter that specifies a dmabuf" do you mean an opaque file-specific
structure allocated inside the new fop? Akin to what Keith proposed back
then. That sounds good and has more potential for various optimisations.
My concern would be growing struct iov_iter by an extra pointer:

struct dma_seg {
	size_t 	off;
	unsigned len;
};

struct iov_iter {
	union {
		struct iovec *iov;
		struct dma_seg *dmav;
		...
	};
	void *dma_token;	
};

But maybe that's fine. It's 40B -> 48B, and it'll get back to
40 when / if xarray_start / ITER_XARRAY is removed.

> I also remember some discussion that new dma-buf importers should
> use the dynamic imported model for long-term imports, but as I'm
> everything but an expert in that area I'll let the dma-buf folks
> speak.

I'll take a look

-- 
Pavel Begunkov

Re: [RFC 00/12] io_uring dmabuf read/write support

[Pavel Begunkov]

On 7/7/25 15:48, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 12:15:54PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> to attach to / detach from a dma_buf, and then have an iter that
>>> specifies a dmabuf and offsets into.  That way the code behind the
>>> file operations can forward the attachment to all the needed
>>> devices (including more/less while it remains attached to the file)
>>> and can pick the right dma address for each device.
>>
>> By "iter that specifies a dmabuf" do you mean an opaque file-specific
>> structure allocated inside the new fop?
> 
> I mean a reference the actual dma_buf (probably indirect through the file
> * for it, but listen to the dma_buf experts for that and not me).

My expectation is that io_uring would pass struct dma_buf to the
file during registration, so that it can do a bunch of work upfront,
but iterators will carry sth already pre-attached and pre dma mapped,
probably in a file specific format hiding details for multi-device
support, and possibly bundled with the dma-buf pointer if necessary.
(All modulo move notify which I need to look into first).

>> Akin to what Keith proposed back
>> then. That sounds good and has more potential for various optimisations.
>> My concern would be growing struct iov_iter by an extra pointer:
> 
>> struct iov_iter {
>> 	union {
>> 		struct iovec *iov;
>> 		struct dma_seg *dmav;
>> 		...
>> 	};
>> 	void *dma_token;	
>> };
>>
>> But maybe that's fine. It's 40B -> 48B,
> 
> Alternatively we could the union point to a struct that has the dma buf
> pointer and a variable length array of dma_segs. Not sure if that would
> create a mess in the callers, though.

Iteration helpers adjust the pointer, so either it needs to store
the pointer directly in iter or keep the current index. It could rely
solely on offsets, but that'll be a mess with nested loops (where the
inner one would walk some kind of sg table).

>> and it'll get back to
>> 40 when / if xarray_start / ITER_XARRAY is removed.
> 
> Would it?  At least for 64-bit architectures nr_segs is the same size.

Ah yes

-- 
Pavel Begunkov