Re: [PATCH v7] Add udmabuf misc device

Re: [PATCH v7] Add udmabuf misc device

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Gerd,

Thank you for the patch.

CC'ing the linux-api mailing list as this creates a new userspace API.

On Monday, 27 August 2018 12:34:44 EEST Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> A driver to let userspace turn memfd regions into dma-bufs.
> 
> Use case:  Allows qemu create dmabufs for the vga framebuffer or
> virtio-gpu ressources.  Then they can be passed around to display
> those guest things on the host.  To spice client for classic full
> framebuffer display, and hopefully some day to wayland server for
> seamless guest window display.
> 
> qemu test branch:
>   https://git.kraxel.org/cgit/qemu/log/?h=sirius/udmabuf
> 
> Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
> Cc: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>
> Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
> Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/ioctl/ioctl-number.txt              |   1 +
>  include/uapi/linux/udmabuf.h                      |  33 +++
>  drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c                         | 287 +++++++++++++++++++
>  tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c |  96 ++++++++
>  MAINTAINERS                                       |  16 ++
>  drivers/dma-buf/Kconfig                           |   8 +
>  drivers/dma-buf/Makefile                          |   1 +
>  tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/Makefile  |   5 +
>  8 files changed, 447 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 include/uapi/linux/udmabuf.h
>  create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/Makefile

[snip]

> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/udmabuf.h b/include/uapi/linux/udmabuf.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..46b6532ed8
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/udmabuf.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */
> +#ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_UDMABUF_H
> +#define _UAPI_LINUX_UDMABUF_H
> +
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/ioctl.h>
> +
> +#define UDMABUF_FLAGS_CLOEXEC	0x01
> +
> +struct udmabuf_create {
> +	__u32 memfd;
> +	__u32 flags;
> +	__u64 offset;
> +	__u64 size;
> +};
> +
> +struct udmabuf_create_item {
> +	__u32 memfd;
> +	__u32 __pad;
> +	__u64 offset;
> +	__u64 size;
> +};
> +
> +struct udmabuf_create_list {
> +	__u32 flags;
> +	__u32 count;
> +	struct udmabuf_create_item list[];
> +};
> +
> +#define UDMABUF_CREATE       _IOW('u', 0x42, struct udmabuf_create)

Why do you start at 0x42 if you reserve the 0x40-0x4f range ?

> +#define UDMABUF_CREATE_LIST  _IOW('u', 0x43, struct udmabuf_create_list)

Where's the documentation ? :-)

> +#endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_UDMABUF_H */
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..8e24204526
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,287 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/miscdevice.h>
> +#include <linux/dma-buf.h>
> +#include <linux/highmem.h>
> +#include <linux/cred.h>
> +#include <linux/shmem_fs.h>
> +#include <linux/memfd.h>

Could you please keep the #include alphabetically sorted ? It helps locating 
duplicates.

> +#include <uapi/linux/udmabuf.h>

I think you can just #include <linux/udmabuf.h>, no need to use the uapi/ 
prefix.

> +struct udmabuf {
> +	u32 pagecount;
> +	struct page **pages;
> +};
> +
> +static int udmabuf_vm_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> +{
> +	struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> +	struct udmabuf *ubuf = vma->vm_private_data;
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON(vmf->pgoff >= ubuf->pagecount))
> +		return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;

Just curious, when do you expect this to happen ?

> +	vmf->page = ubuf->pages[vmf->pgoff];
> +	get_page(vmf->page);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct vm_operations_struct udmabuf_vm_ops = {
> +	.fault = udmabuf_vm_fault,
> +};
> +
> +static int mmap_udmabuf(struct dma_buf *buf, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +{
> +	struct udmabuf *ubuf = buf->priv;
> +
> +	if ((vma->vm_flags & (VM_SHARED | VM_MAYSHARE)) == 0)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	vma->vm_ops = &udmabuf_vm_ops;
> +	vma->vm_private_data = ubuf;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct sg_table *map_udmabuf(struct dma_buf_attachment *at,
> +				    enum dma_data_direction direction)
> +{
> +	struct udmabuf *ubuf = at->dmabuf->priv;
> +	struct sg_table *sg;
> +
> +	sg = kzalloc(sizeof(*sg), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!sg)
> +		goto err1;

You can return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM) directly.

> +	if (sg_alloc_table_from_pages(sg, ubuf->pages, ubuf->pagecount,
> +				      0, ubuf->pagecount << PAGE_SHIFT,
> +				      GFP_KERNEL) < 0)

Shouldn't you propagate the return value from sg_alloc_table_from_pages() ?

> +		goto err2;
> +	if (!dma_map_sg(at->dev, sg->sgl, sg->nents, direction))
> +		goto err3;
> +
> +	return sg;
> +
> +err3:
> +	sg_free_table(sg);
> +err2:
> +	kfree(sg);
> +err1:
> +	return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);

You can merge all these labels with

error:
	if (sg) {
		sg_free_table(sg);
		kfree(sg);
	}

	return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);

> +}
> +
> +static void unmap_udmabuf(struct dma_buf_attachment *at,
> +			  struct sg_table *sg,
> +			  enum dma_data_direction direction)
> +{
> +	sg_free_table(sg);
> +	kfree(sg);
> +}
> +
> +static void release_udmabuf(struct dma_buf *buf)
> +{
> +	struct udmabuf *ubuf = buf->priv;
> +	pgoff_t pg;
> +
> +	for (pg = 0; pg < ubuf->pagecount; pg++)

Shouldn't both pg and pagecount have the same type ? Why does the loop counter 
qualify for a pgoff_t and not the pagecount field ? Granted, the pgoff_t is 
documented as "The type of an index in the page cache", so pagecount doesn't 
really quality, but the fact that one is an unsigned long and the other a u32 
makes me think that something is wrong.

> +		put_page(ubuf->pages[pg]);
> +	kfree(ubuf->pages);
> +	kfree(ubuf);
> +}
> +
> +static void *kmap_udmabuf(struct dma_buf *buf, unsigned long page_num)
> +{
> +	struct udmabuf *ubuf = buf->priv;
> +	struct page *page = ubuf->pages[page_num];
> +
> +	return kmap(page);
> +}
> +
> +static void kunmap_udmabuf(struct dma_buf *buf, unsigned long page_num,
> +			   void *vaddr)
> +{
> +	kunmap(vaddr);
> +}
> +
> +static struct dma_buf_ops udmabuf_ops = {

static const struct

> +	.map_dma_buf	  = map_udmabuf,
> +	.unmap_dma_buf	  = unmap_udmabuf,
> +	.release	  = release_udmabuf,
> +	.map		  = kmap_udmabuf,
> +	.unmap		  = kunmap_udmabuf,
> +	.mmap		  = mmap_udmabuf,
> +};
> +
> +#define SEALS_WANTED (F_SEAL_SHRINK)
> +#define SEALS_DENIED (F_SEAL_WRITE)
> +
> +static long udmabuf_create(struct udmabuf_create_list *head,
> +			   struct udmabuf_create_item *list)

Those two structures are not modified by the function, you can make them 
const.

> +{
> +	DEFINE_DMA_BUF_EXPORT_INFO(exp_info);
> +	struct file *memfd = NULL;
> +	struct udmabuf *ubuf;
> +	struct dma_buf *buf;
> +	pgoff_t pgoff, pgcnt, pgidx, pgbuf;
> +	struct page *page;
> +	int seals, ret = -EINVAL;
> +	u32 i, flags;
> +
> +	ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(struct udmabuf), GFP_KERNEL);

sizeof(*ubuf)

> +	if (!ubuf)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < head->count; i++) {
> +		if (!IS_ALIGNED(list[i].offset, PAGE_SIZE))
> +			goto err_free_ubuf;
> +		if (!IS_ALIGNED(list[i].size, PAGE_SIZE))
> +			goto err_free_ubuf;
> +		ubuf->pagecount += list[i].size >> PAGE_SHIFT;

Is there a risk of overflowing pagecount ?

> +	}
> +	ubuf->pages = kmalloc_array(ubuf->pagecount, sizeof(struct page *),
> +				    GFP_KERNEL);

sizeof(*ubuf->pages)

> +	if (!ubuf->pages) {
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +		goto err_free_ubuf;
> +	}
> +
> +	pgbuf = 0;
> +	for (i = 0; i < head->count; i++) {
> +		memfd = fget(list[i].memfd);
> +		if (!memfd)
> +			goto err_put_pages;
> +		if (!shmem_mapping(file_inode(memfd)->i_mapping))
> +			goto err_put_pages;
> +		seals = memfd_fcntl(memfd, F_GET_SEALS, 0);
> +		if (seals == -EINVAL ||
> +		    (seals & SEALS_WANTED) != SEALS_WANTED ||
> +		    (seals & SEALS_DENIED) != 0)
> +			goto err_put_pages;

All these conditions will return -EINVAL. I'm not familiar with the memfd API, 
should some error conditions return a different error code to make them 
distinguishable by userspace ?

> +		pgoff = list[i].offset >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +		pgcnt = list[i].size   >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +		for (pgidx = 0; pgidx < pgcnt; pgidx++) {
> +			page = shmem_read_mapping_page(
> +				file_inode(memfd)->i_mapping, pgoff + pgidx);

Can't pgoff + pgcnt overflow the total number of avialble pages ?

> +			if (IS_ERR(page)) {
> +				ret = PTR_ERR(page);
> +				goto err_put_pages;
> +			}
> +			ubuf->pages[pgbuf++] = page;
> +		}
> +		fput(memfd);
> +	}
> +	memfd = NULL;

I'd move this line just after fput(memfd) inside the loop to avoid 
introduction bugs in the future if we add code that can break from the loop 
before the fget() call.

> +	exp_info.ops  = &udmabuf_ops;
> +	exp_info.size = ubuf->pagecount << PAGE_SHIFT;
> +	exp_info.priv = ubuf;
> +
> +	buf = dma_buf_export(&exp_info);
> +	if (IS_ERR(buf)) {
> +		ret = PTR_ERR(buf);
> +		goto err_put_pages;
> +	}
> +
> +	flags = 0;
> +	if (head->flags & UDMABUF_FLAGS_CLOEXEC)
> +		flags |= O_CLOEXEC;
> +	return dma_buf_fd(buf, flags);
> +
> +err_put_pages:
> +	while (pgbuf > 0)
> +		put_page(ubuf->pages[--pgbuf]);

If you initialize pgbuf to 0 you can merge the two error labels.

> +err_free_ubuf:
> +	fput(memfd);
> +	kfree(ubuf->pages);
> +	kfree(ubuf);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static long udmabuf_ioctl_create(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg)
> +{
> +	struct udmabuf_create create;
> +	struct udmabuf_create_list head;
> +	struct udmabuf_create_item list;
> +
> +	if (copy_from_user(&create, (void __user *)arg,
> +			   sizeof(struct udmabuf_create)))

sizeof(create)

> +		return -EFAULT;
> +
> +	head.flags  = create.flags;
> +	head.count  = 1;
> +	list.memfd  = create.memfd;
> +	list.offset = create.offset;
> +	list.size   = create.size;
> +
> +	return udmabuf_create(&head, &list);
> +}
> +
> +static long udmabuf_ioctl_create_list(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg)
> +{
> +	struct udmabuf_create_list head;
> +	struct udmabuf_create_item *list;
> +	int ret = -EINVAL;
> +	u32 lsize;
> +
> +	if (copy_from_user(&head, (void __user *)arg, sizeof(head)))
> +		return -EFAULT;
> +	if (head.count > 1024)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	lsize = sizeof(struct udmabuf_create_item) * head.count;
> +	list = memdup_user((void __user *)(arg + sizeof(head)), lsize);
> +	if (IS_ERR(list))
> +		return PTR_ERR(list);
> +
> +	ret = udmabuf_create(&head, list);
> +	kfree(list);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static long udmabuf_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int ioctl,
> +			  unsigned long arg)
> +{
> +	long ret;
> +
> +	switch (ioctl) {
> +	case UDMABUF_CREATE:
> +		ret = udmabuf_ioctl_create(filp, arg);
> +		break;
> +	case UDMABUF_CREATE_LIST:
> +		ret = udmabuf_ioctl_create_list(filp, arg);
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		ret = -EINVAL;

The proper error code for invalid ioctls is -ENOTTY.

> +		break;
> +	}
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct file_operations udmabuf_fops = {
> +	.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
> +	.unlocked_ioctl = udmabuf_ioctl,
> +};
> +
> +static struct miscdevice udmabuf_misc = {
> +	.minor          = MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR,
> +	.name           = "udmabuf",
> +	.fops           = &udmabuf_fops,
> +};
> +
> +static int __init udmabuf_dev_init(void)
> +{
> +	return misc_register(&udmabuf_misc);
> +}
> +
> +static void __exit udmabuf_dev_exit(void)
> +{
> +	misc_deregister(&udmabuf_misc);
> +}
> +
> +module_init(udmabuf_dev_init)
> +module_exit(udmabuf_dev_exit)
> +
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..376b1d6730
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +#include <stdlib.h>
> +#include <unistd.h>
> +#include <string.h>
> +#include <errno.h>
> +#include <fcntl.h>
> +#include <malloc.h>
> +
> +#include <sys/ioctl.h>
> +#include <sys/syscall.h>
> +#include <linux/memfd.h>
> +#include <linux/udmabuf.h>
> +
> +#define TEST_PREFIX	"drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf"
> +#define NUM_PAGES       4
> +
> +static int memfd_create(const char *name, unsigned int flags)
> +{
> +	return syscall(__NR_memfd_create, name, flags);
> +}
> +
> +int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> +{
> +	struct udmabuf_create create;
> +	int devfd, memfd, buf, ret;
> +	off_t size;
> +	void *mem;
> +
> +	devfd = open("/dev/udmabuf", O_RDWR);
> +	if (devfd < 0) {
> +		printf("%s: [skip,no-udmabuf]\n", TEST_PREFIX);
> +		exit(77);
> +	}
> +
> +	memfd = memfd_create("udmabuf-test", MFD_CLOEXEC);
> +	if (memfd < 0) {
> +		printf("%s: [skip,no-memfd]\n", TEST_PREFIX);
> +		exit(77);
> +	}
> +
> +	size = getpagesize() * NUM_PAGES;
> +	ret = ftruncate(memfd, size);
> +	if (ret == -1) {
> +		printf("%s: [FAIL,memfd-truncate]\n", TEST_PREFIX);
> +		exit(1);
> +	}
> +
> +	memset(&create, 0, sizeof(create));
> +
> +	/* should fail (offset not page aligned) */
> +	create.memfd  = memfd;
> +	create.offset = getpagesize()/2;
> +	create.size   = getpagesize();
> +	buf = ioctl(devfd, UDMABUF_CREATE, &create);
> +	if (buf >= 0) {
> +		printf("%s: [FAIL,test-1]\n", TEST_PREFIX);
> +		exit(1);
> +	}
> +
> +	/* should fail (size not multiple of page) */
> +	create.memfd  = memfd;
> +	create.offset = 0;
> +	create.size   = getpagesize()/2;
> +	buf = ioctl(devfd, UDMABUF_CREATE, &create);
> +	if (buf >= 0) {
> +		printf("%s: [FAIL,test-2]\n", TEST_PREFIX);
> +		exit(1);
> +	}
> +
> +	/* should fail (not memfd) */
> +	create.memfd  = 0; /* stdin */
> +	create.offset = 0;
> +	create.size   = size;
> +	buf = ioctl(devfd, UDMABUF_CREATE, &create);
> +	if (buf >= 0) {
> +		printf("%s: [FAIL,test-3]\n", TEST_PREFIX);
> +		exit(1);
> +	}
> +
> +	/* should work */
> +	create.memfd  = memfd;
> +	create.offset = 0;
> +	create.size   = size;
> +	buf = ioctl(devfd, UDMABUF_CREATE, &create);
> +	if (buf < 0) {
> +		printf("%s: [FAIL,test-4]\n", TEST_PREFIX);
> +		exit(1);
> +	}
> +
> +	fprintf(stderr, "%s: ok\n", TEST_PREFIX);
> +	close(buf);
> +	close(memfd);
> +	close(devfd);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index a5b256b259..11a9b04277 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -14934,6 +14934,14 @@ S:	Maintained
>  F:	Documentation/filesystems/udf.txt
>  F:	fs/udf/
> 
> +UDMABUF DRIVER
> +M:	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> +L:	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> +S:	Maintained
> +F:	drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
> +F:	include/uapi/linux/udmabuf.h
> +F:	tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
> +
>  UDRAW TABLET
>  M:	Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net>
>  L:	linux-input@vger.kernel.org
> @@ -15343,6 +15351,14 @@ F:	arch/x86/um/
>  F:	fs/hostfs/
>  F:	fs/hppfs/
> 
> +USERSPACE DMA BUFFER DRIVER
> +M:	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> +S:	Maintained
> +L:	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> +F:	drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
> +F:	include/uapi/linux/udmabuf.h
> +T:	git git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc

One entry should be enough.

>  USERSPACE I/O (UIO)
>  M:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>  S:	Maintained

[snip]

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart



_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH v7] Add udmabuf misc device

[Gerd Hoffmann]

  Hi,

> > +#define UDMABUF_CREATE       _IOW('u', 0x42, struct udmabuf_create)
> 
> Why do you start at 0x42 if you reserve the 0x40-0x4f range ?

No particular strong reason, just that using 42 was less boring than
starting with 0x40.

> > +#define UDMABUF_CREATE_LIST  _IOW('u', 0x43, struct udmabuf_create_list)
> 
> Where's the documentation ? :-)

Isn't it simple enough?

But, well, yes, I guess I can add some kerneldoc comments.

> > +static int udmabuf_vm_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > +{
> > +	struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> > +	struct udmabuf *ubuf = vma->vm_private_data;
> > +
> > +	if (WARN_ON(vmf->pgoff >= ubuf->pagecount))
> > +		return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> 
> Just curious, when do you expect this to happen ?

It should not.  If it actually happens it would be a bug somewhere,
thats why the WARN_ON.

> > +	struct udmabuf *ubuf;

> > +	ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(struct udmabuf), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> sizeof(*ubuf)

Why?  Should not make a difference ...

> > +		memfd = fget(list[i].memfd);
> > +		if (!memfd)
> > +			goto err_put_pages;
> > +		if (!shmem_mapping(file_inode(memfd)->i_mapping))
> > +			goto err_put_pages;
> > +		seals = memfd_fcntl(memfd, F_GET_SEALS, 0);
> > +		if (seals == -EINVAL ||
> > +		    (seals & SEALS_WANTED) != SEALS_WANTED ||
> > +		    (seals & SEALS_DENIED) != 0)
> > +			goto err_put_pages;
> 
> All these conditions will return -EINVAL. I'm not familiar with the memfd API, 
> should some error conditions return a different error code to make them 
> distinguishable by userspace ?

Hmm, I guess EBADFD would be reasonable in case the file handle isn't a
memfd.  Other suggestions?

I'll prepare a fixup patch series addressing most of the other
review comments.

cheers,
  Gerd

Re: [PATCH v7] Add udmabuf misc device

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Gerd,

On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 09:50:14 EEST Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>   Hi,
> 
> >> +#define UDMABUF_CREATE       _IOW('u', 0x42, struct udmabuf_create)
> > 
> > Why do you start at 0x42 if you reserve the 0x40-0x4f range ?
> 
> No particular strong reason, just that using 42 was less boring than
> starting with 0x40.
> 
> >> +#define UDMABUF_CREATE_LIST  _IOW('u', 0x43, struct
> >> udmabuf_create_list)
> > 
> > Where's the documentation ? :-)
> 
> Isn't it simple enough?

No kernel UAPI is simple enough to get away without documenting it.

> But, well, yes, I guess I can add some kerneldoc comments.
> 
> >> +static int udmabuf_vm_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> >> +	struct udmabuf *ubuf = vma->vm_private_data;
> >> +
> >> +	if (WARN_ON(vmf->pgoff >= ubuf->pagecount))
> >> +		return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> > 
> > Just curious, when do you expect this to happen ?
> 
> It should not.  If it actually happens it would be a bug somewhere,
> thats why the WARN_ON.

But you seem to consider that this condition that should never happen still 
has a high enough chance of happening that it's worth a WARN_ON(). I was 
wondering why this one in particular, and not other conditions that also can't 
happen and are not checked through the code. 

> >> +	struct udmabuf *ubuf;
> >> 
> >> +	ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(struct udmabuf), GFP_KERNEL);
> > 
> > sizeof(*ubuf)
> 
> Why?  Should not make a difference ...

Because the day we replace

	struct udmabuf *ubuf;

with

	struct udmabuf_ext *ubuf;

and forget to change the next line, we'll introduce a bug. That's why 
sizeof(variable) is preferred over sizeof(type). Another reason is that I can 
easily see that

	ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(*ubuf), GFP_KERNEL);

is correct, while using sizeof(type) requires me to go and look up the 
declaration of the variable.

> >> +		memfd = fget(list[i].memfd);
> >> +		if (!memfd)
> >> +			goto err_put_pages;
> >> +		if (!shmem_mapping(file_inode(memfd)->i_mapping))
> >> +			goto err_put_pages;
> >> +		seals = memfd_fcntl(memfd, F_GET_SEALS, 0);
> >> +		if (seals == -EINVAL ||
> >> +		    (seals & SEALS_WANTED) != SEALS_WANTED ||
> >> +		    (seals & SEALS_DENIED) != 0)
> >> +			goto err_put_pages;
> > 
> > All these conditions will return -EINVAL. I'm not familiar with the memfd
> > API, should some error conditions return a different error code to make
> > them distinguishable by userspace ?
> 
> Hmm, I guess EBADFD would be reasonable in case the file handle isn't a
> memfd.  Other suggestions?

I'll let others comment on this as I don't feel qualified to pick proper error 
codes, not being familiar with the memfd API.

> I'll prepare a fixup patch series addressing most of the other
> review comments.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart



_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH v7] Add udmabuf misc device

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> Hi Gerd,
>
> On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 09:50:14 EEST Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>>   Hi,
>>
>> >> +#define UDMABUF_CREATE       _IOW('u', 0x42, struct udmabuf_create)
>> >
>> > Why do you start at 0x42 if you reserve the 0x40-0x4f range ?
>>
>> No particular strong reason, just that using 42 was less boring than
>> starting with 0x40.
>>
>> >> +#define UDMABUF_CREATE_LIST  _IOW('u', 0x43, struct
>> >> udmabuf_create_list)
>> >
>> > Where's the documentation ? :-)
>>
>> Isn't it simple enough?
>
> No kernel UAPI is simple enough to get away without documenting it.

Simplest option would be to throw a bit of kerneldoc into the uapi
header, add Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst.
-Daniel

>
>> But, well, yes, I guess I can add some kerneldoc comments.
>>
>> >> +static int udmabuf_vm_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> >> +{
>> >> +  struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
>> >> +  struct udmabuf *ubuf = vma->vm_private_data;
>> >> +
>> >> +  if (WARN_ON(vmf->pgoff >= ubuf->pagecount))
>> >> +          return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
>> >
>> > Just curious, when do you expect this to happen ?
>>
>> It should not.  If it actually happens it would be a bug somewhere,
>> thats why the WARN_ON.
>
> But you seem to consider that this condition that should never happen still
> has a high enough chance of happening that it's worth a WARN_ON(). I was
> wondering why this one in particular, and not other conditions that also can't
> happen and are not checked through the code.
>
>> >> +  struct udmabuf *ubuf;
>> >>
>> >> +  ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(struct udmabuf), GFP_KERNEL);
>> >
>> > sizeof(*ubuf)
>>
>> Why?  Should not make a difference ...
>
> Because the day we replace
>
>         struct udmabuf *ubuf;
>
> with
>
>         struct udmabuf_ext *ubuf;
>
> and forget to change the next line, we'll introduce a bug. That's why
> sizeof(variable) is preferred over sizeof(type). Another reason is that I can
> easily see that
>
>         ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(*ubuf), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> is correct, while using sizeof(type) requires me to go and look up the
> declaration of the variable.
>
>> >> +          memfd = fget(list[i].memfd);
>> >> +          if (!memfd)
>> >> +                  goto err_put_pages;
>> >> +          if (!shmem_mapping(file_inode(memfd)->i_mapping))
>> >> +                  goto err_put_pages;
>> >> +          seals = memfd_fcntl(memfd, F_GET_SEALS, 0);
>> >> +          if (seals == -EINVAL ||
>> >> +              (seals & SEALS_WANTED) != SEALS_WANTED ||
>> >> +              (seals & SEALS_DENIED) != 0)
>> >> +                  goto err_put_pages;
>> >
>> > All these conditions will return -EINVAL. I'm not familiar with the memfd
>> > API, should some error conditions return a different error code to make
>> > them distinguishable by userspace ?
>>
>> Hmm, I guess EBADFD would be reasonable in case the file handle isn't a
>> memfd.  Other suggestions?
>
> I'll let others comment on this as I don't feel qualified to pick proper error
> codes, not being familiar with the memfd API.
>
>> I'll prepare a fixup patch series addressing most of the other
>> review comments.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
>
>
>



-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: [PATCH v7] Add udmabuf misc device

[Gerd Hoffmann]

> > >> +	if (WARN_ON(vmf->pgoff >= ubuf->pagecount))
> > >> +		return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> > > 
> > > Just curious, when do you expect this to happen ?
> > 
> > It should not.  If it actually happens it would be a bug somewhere,
> > thats why the WARN_ON.
> 
> But you seem to consider that this condition that should never happen still 
> has a high enough chance of happening that it's worth a WARN_ON(). I was 
> wondering why this one in particular, and not other conditions that also can't 
> happen and are not checked through the code. 

Added it while writing the code, to get any coding mistake I make
flagged right away instead of things exploding later on.

I can drop it.

> > >> +	ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(struct udmabuf), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > 
> > > sizeof(*ubuf)
> > 
> > Why?  Should not make a difference ...
> 
> Because the day we replace
> 
> 	struct udmabuf *ubuf;
> 
> with
> 
> 	struct udmabuf_ext *ubuf;
> 
> and forget to change the next line, we'll introduce a bug. That's why 
> sizeof(variable) is preferred over sizeof(type). Another reason is that I can 
> easily see that
> 
> 	ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(*ubuf), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> is correct, while using sizeof(type) requires me to go and look up the 
> declaration of the variable.

So it simplifies review, ok, will change it.

BTW: Maybe the kernel should pick up a neat trick from glib:

g_new0() is a macro which takes the type instead of the size as first
argument, and it casts the return value to that type.  So the compiler
will throw warnings in case of a mismatch.  That'll work better than
depending purely on the coder being careful and review catching the
remaining issues.

cheers,
  Gerd

Re: [v7] Add udmabuf misc device

[Yann Droneaud]

Hi,

Le lundi 27 août 2018 à 11:34 +0200, Gerd Hoffmann a écrit :
> A driver to let userspace turn memfd regions into dma-bufs.
> 
> Use case:  Allows qemu create dmabufs for the vga framebuffer or
> virtio-gpu ressources.  Then they can be passed around to display
> those guest things on the host.  To spice client for classic full
> framebuffer display, and hopefully some day to wayland server for
> seamless guest window display.
> 
> qemu test branch:
>   https://git.kraxel.org/cgit/qemu/log/?h=sirius/udmabuf
> 
> Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
> Cc: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>
> Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
> Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> ---
>  Documentation/ioctl/ioctl-number.txt              |   1 +
>  include/uapi/linux/udmabuf.h                      |  33 +++
>  drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c                         | 287
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c |  96 ++++++++
>  MAINTAINERS                                       |  16 ++
>  drivers/dma-buf/Kconfig                           |   8 +
>  drivers/dma-buf/Makefile                          |   1 +
>  tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/Makefile  |   5 +
>  8 files changed, 447 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 include/uapi/linux/udmabuf.h
>  create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/Makefile
> 
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/udmabuf.h
> b/include/uapi/linux/udmabuf.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..46b6532ed8
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/udmabuf.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */
> +#ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_UDMABUF_H
> +#define _UAPI_LINUX_UDMABUF_H
> +
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/ioctl.h>
> +
> +#define UDMABUF_FLAGS_CLOEXEC	0x01
> +
> +struct udmabuf_create {
> +	__u32 memfd;
> +	__u32 flags;
> +	__u64 offset;
> +	__u64 size;
> +};
> +
> +struct udmabuf_create_item {
> +	__u32 memfd;
> +	__u32 __pad;
> +	__u64 offset;
> +	__u64 size;
> +};
> +
> +struct udmabuf_create_list {
> +	__u32 flags;
> +	__u32 count;
> +	struct udmabuf_create_item list[];
> +};
> +
> +#define UDMABUF_CREATE       _IOW('u', 0x42, struct udmabuf_create)
> +#define UDMABUF_CREATE_LIST  _IOW('u', 0x43, struct
> udmabuf_create_list)
> +
> +#endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_UDMABUF_H */
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..8e24204526
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
> +static long udmabuf_create(struct udmabuf_create_list *head,
> +			   struct udmabuf_create_item *list)
> +{
> +	DEFINE_DMA_BUF_EXPORT_INFO(exp_info);
> +	struct file *memfd = NULL;
> +	struct udmabuf *ubuf;
> +	struct dma_buf *buf;
> +	pgoff_t pgoff, pgcnt, pgidx, pgbuf;
> +	struct page *page;
> +	int seals, ret = -EINVAL;
> +	u32 i, flags;
> +
> +	ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(struct udmabuf), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!ubuf)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < head->count; i++) {

You need to check .__pad for unsupported value:

                if (list[i].__pad) {
                        ret = -EINVAL;
                        goto err_free_ubuf;
                }

> +		if (!IS_ALIGNED(list[i].offset, PAGE_SIZE))
> +			goto err_free_ubuf;
> +		if (!IS_ALIGNED(list[i].size, PAGE_SIZE))
> +			goto err_free_ubuf;
> +		ubuf->pagecount += list[i].size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +	}
> +	ubuf->pages = kmalloc_array(ubuf->pagecount, sizeof(struct page
> *),
> +				    GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!ubuf->pages) {
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +		goto err_free_ubuf;
> +	}
> +
> +	pgbuf = 0;
> +	for (i = 0; i < head->count; i++) {
> +		memfd = fget(list[i].memfd);
> +		if (!memfd)
> +			goto err_put_pages;
> +		if (!shmem_mapping(file_inode(memfd)->i_mapping))
> +			goto err_put_pages;
> +		seals = memfd_fcntl(memfd, F_GET_SEALS, 0);
> +		if (seals == -EINVAL ||
> +		    (seals & SEALS_WANTED) != SEALS_WANTED ||
> +		    (seals & SEALS_DENIED) != 0)
> +			goto err_put_pages;
> +		pgoff = list[i].offset >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +		pgcnt = list[i].size   >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +		for (pgidx = 0; pgidx < pgcnt; pgidx++) {
> +			page = shmem_read_mapping_page(
> +				file_inode(memfd)->i_mapping, pgoff +
> pgidx);
> +			if (IS_ERR(page)) {
> +				ret = PTR_ERR(page);
> +				goto err_put_pages;
> +			}
> +			ubuf->pages[pgbuf++] = page;
> +		}
> +		fput(memfd);
> +	}
> +	memfd = NULL;
> +
> +	exp_info.ops  = &udmabuf_ops;
> +	exp_info.size = ubuf->pagecount << PAGE_SHIFT;
> +	exp_info.priv = ubuf;
> +
> +	buf = dma_buf_export(&exp_info);
> +	if (IS_ERR(buf)) {
> +		ret = PTR_ERR(buf);
> +		goto err_put_pages;
> +	}
> +
> +	flags = 0;

You need to check .flags for unsupported value:

        if (head->flags & ~UDMABUF_FLAGS_CLOEXEC)
                 return -EINVAL;

(at the beginning of the function, of course).

> +	if (head->flags & UDMABUF_FLAGS_CLOEXEC)
> +		flags |= O_CLOEXEC;
> +	return dma_buf_fd(buf, flags);
> +
> +err_put_pages:
> +	while (pgbuf > 0)
> +		put_page(ubuf->pages[--pgbuf]);
> +err_free_ubuf:
> +	fput(memfd);
> +	kfree(ubuf->pages);
> +	kfree(ubuf);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +

Regards

-- 
Yann Droneaud
OPTEYA