On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 6:07 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 9 Jan 2023 21:38:06 +0000 T.J. Mercier <tjmercier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > @@ -2275,6 +2276,26 @@ static int binder_translate_fd(u32 fd, binder_size_t fd_offset,
> > goto err_security;
> > }
> >
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMCG) && (flags & BINDER_FD_FLAG_XFER_CHARGE)) {
> > + struct dma_buf *dmabuf;
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(!is_dma_buf_file(file))) {
> > + binder_user_error(
> > + "%d:%d got transaction with XFER_CHARGE for non-dmabuf fd, %d\n",
> > + proc->pid, thread->pid, fd);
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + goto err_dmabuf;
> > + }
>
> It barely makes sense to expose is_dma_buf_file() only for this.
> > +
> > + dmabuf = file->private_data;
> > + ret = dma_buf_transfer_charge(dmabuf, target_proc->tsk);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + pr_warn("%d:%d Unable to transfer DMA-BUF fd charge to %d\n",
> > + proc->pid, thread->pid, target_proc->pid);
> > + goto err_xfer;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
>
> This whole hunk should go to dma-buf instead by adding change to
> dma_buf_transfer_charge() for instance.
Fair enough, will change this for v2. I think we'd still want to
distinguish between the two failure modes for logging purposes, so
I'll use the return value of dma_buf_transfer_charge to do that.
