Hi, Jason, A quick question below: On 7/23/21 7:21 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
From: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> If our exported dma-bufs are imported by another instance of our driver, that instance will typically have the imported dma-bufs locked during dma_buf_map_attachment(). But the exporter also locks the same reservation object in the map_dma_buf() callback, which leads to recursive locking. So taking the lock inside _pin_pages_unlocked() is incorrect. Additionally, the current pinning code path is contrary to the defined way that pinning should occur. Remove the explicit pin/unpin from the map/umap functions and move them to the attach/detach allowing correct locking to occur, and to match the static dma-buf drm_prime pattern. Add a live selftest to exercise both dynamic and non-dynamic exports. v2: - Extend the selftest with a fake dynamic importer. - Provide real pin and unpin callbacks to not abuse the interface. v3: (ruhl) - Remove the dynamic export support and move the pinning into the attach/detach path. v4: (ruhl) - Put pages does not need to assert on the dma-resv v5: (jason) - Lock around dma_buf_unmap_attachment() when emulating a dynamic importer in the subtests. - Use pin_pages_unlocked v6: (jason) - Use dma_buf_attach instead of dma_buf_attach_dynamic in the selftests
Why did we drop the dynamic importer from the selftests? Shouldn't we try to ensure compatibility with dynamic importers?
/Thomas
