On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 8:20 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 06:49:11PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > +struct ib_umem *ib_umem_dmabuf_get(struct ib_device *device,
> > > + unsigned long offset, size_t size,
> > > + int fd, int access,
> > > + const struct dma_buf_attach_ops *ops)
> > > +{
> > > + struct dma_buf *dmabuf;
> > > + struct ib_umem_dmabuf *umem_dmabuf;
> > > + struct ib_umem *umem;
> > > + unsigned long end;
> > > + long ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (check_add_overflow(offset, (unsigned long)size, &end))
> > > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > > +
> > > + if (unlikely(PAGE_ALIGN(end) < PAGE_SIZE))
> > > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > > +
> > > + if (unlikely(!ops || !ops->move_notify))
> > > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DMA_VIRT_OPS
> > > + if (device->dma_device->dma_ops == &dma_virt_ops)
> > > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > > +#endif
> >
> > Maybe I'm confused, but should we have this check in dma_buf_attach, or at
> > least in dma_buf_dynamic_attach? The p2pdma functions use that too, and I
> > can't imagine how zerocopy should work (which is like the entire point of
> > dma-buf) when we have dma_virt_ops.
>
> The problem is we have RDMA drivers that assume SGL's have a valid
> struct page, and these hacky/wrong P2P sgls that DMABUF creates cannot
> be passed into those drivers.
>
> But maybe this is just a 'drivers are using it wrong' if they call
> this function and expect struct pages..
>
> The check in the p2p stuff was done to avoid this too, but it was on a
> different flow.
Yeah definitely don't call dma_buf_map_attachment and expect a page
back. In practice you'll get a page back fairly often, but I don't
think we want to bake that in, maybe we eventually get to non-hacky
dma_addr_t only sgl.
What I'm wondering is whether dma_buf_attach shouldn't reject such
devices directly, instead of each importer having to do that.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
