On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 4:13 PM Jeffrey Kardatzke <jkardatzke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:51 PM John Stultz <jstultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:27 PM Jeffrey Kardatzke <jkardatzke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:52 PM John Stultz <jstultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I know part of this effort here is to start to centralize all these > > > > vendor specific restricted buffer implementations, which I think is > > > > great, but I just worry that in doing it in the dmabuf heap interface, > > > > it is a bit too user-facing. The likelihood of encoding a particular > > > > semantic to the singular "restricted_heap" name seems high. > > > > > > In patch #5 it has the actual driver implementation for the MTK heap > > > that includes the heap name of "restricted_mtk_cm", so there shouldn't > > > be a heap named "restricted_heap" that's actually getting exposed. The > > > > Ah, I appreciate that clarification! Indeed, you're right the name is > > passed through. Apologies for missing that detail. > > > > > restricted_heap code is a framework, and not a driver itself. Unless > > > I'm missing something in this patchset...but that's the way it's > > > *supposed* to be. > > > > So I guess I'm not sure I understand the benefit of the extra > > indirection. What then does the restricted_heap.c logic itself > > provide? > > The dmabuf heaps framework already provides a way to add heap implementations. > > So in the v1 patchset, it was done with just a Mediatek specific heap > with no framework or abstractions for another vendor to build on top > of. The feedback was to make this more generic since Mediatek won't be > the only vendor who wants a restricted heap..which is how it ended up > here. There was more code in the framework before relating to TEE > calls, but then that was moved to the vendor specific code since not > all restricted heaps are allocated through a TEE. Yeah. I apologize, as I know how frustrating the contradictory feedback can be. I don't mean to demotivate. :( I think folks would very much like to see consolidation around the various implementations, and I agree! I just worry that creating the common framework for this concept in a dmabuf heaps driver is maybe too peripheral/close to userland. > This was also desirable for the V4L2 pieces since there's going to be > a V4L2 flag set when using restricted dma_bufs (and it wants to > validate that)....so in order to keep that more generic, there should > be a higher level concept of restricted dma_bufs that isn't specific > to a single vendor. One other thing that would ideally come out of > this is a cleaner way to check that a dma_buf is restricted or not. Yeah. If there is a clear meaning to "restricted" here, I think having a query method on the dmabuf is reasonable. My only fret is if the meaning is too vague and userland starts depending on it meaning what it meant for vendor1, but doesn't mean for vendor2. So we need some clarity in what "restricted" really means. For instance, it being not cpu mappable vs other potential variations like being cpu mappable, but not cpu accessible. Or not cpu mappable, but only mappable between a set of 3 devices (Which 3 devices?! How can we tell?). And if there is variation, maybe we need to enumerate the types of "restricted" buffers so we can be specific when it's queried. That's where maybe having the framework for this be more central or closer to the kernel mm code and not just a sub-type of a dmabuf heap driver might be better? > The current V4L2 patchset just attaches the dma_buf and then checks if > the page table is empty....and if so, it's restricted. But now I see > there's other feedback indicating attaching a restricted dma_buf > shouldn't even be allowed, so we'll need another strategy for > detecting them. Ideally there is some function/macro like > is_dma_buf_restricted(struct dma_buf*) that can indicate that...but we > haven't come up with a good way to do that yet which doesn't involve > adding another field to dma_buf or to dma_buf_ops (and if such a thing > would be fine, then OK...but I had assumed we would get pushback on > modifying either of those structs). If there's a need and the best place to put something is in the dma_buf or dma_buf_ops, that's where it should go. Folks may reasonably disagree if it's the best place (there may be yet better spots for the state to sit in the abstractions), but for stuff going upstream, there's no reason to try to hack around things or smuggle state just to avoid changing core structures. Especially if core structures are internal only and have no ABI implications. Sima's suggestion that attachments should fail if the device cannot properly map the restricted buffer makes sense to me. Though I don't quite see why all attachments should fail, and I don't really like the idea of a private api, but I need to look more at the suggested virtio example (but even they said that wasn't their preferred route). My sense of attach was only that it was supposed to connect a device's interest in the buffer, allowing lazy allocation to satisfy various device constraints before first mapping - a design feature that I don't think anyone ever implemented. So my sense was it didn't have much meaning otherwise (but was a requirement to call before map). But that may have evolved since the early days. And I'm sure the method to figure out if the attachment can work with the device may be complicated/difficult, so it sounding reasonable can be far from it being reasonable to implement. And again, I don't mean to frustrate or demotivate here. I'm really excited to see this effort being pushed upstream! thanks -john
