Am 08.05.24 um 09:51 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
On 2024-05-07 19:45, Christian König wrote:
Am 07.05.24 um 18:46 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
Just what are the requirements for the GPU stack? Is one of the file
descriptors "trusted", IOW, you know what kind it is?
Because dammit, it's *so* easy to do. You could just add a core DRM
ioctl for it. Literally just
struct fd f1 = fdget(fd1);
struct fd f2 = fdget(fd2);
int same;
same = f1.file && f1.file == f2.file;
fdput(fd1);
fdput(fd2);
return same;
where the only question is if you also woudl want to deal with O_PATH
fd's, in which case the "fdget()" would be "fdget_raw()".
Honestly, adding some DRM ioctl for this sounds hacky, but it sounds
less hacky than relying on EPOLL or KCMP.
I'd be perfectly ok with adding a generic "FISAME" VFS level ioctl
too, if this is possibly a more common thing. and not just DRM wants
it.
Would something like that work for you?
Well the generic approach yes, the DRM specific one maybe. IIRC we need to be
able to compare both DRM as well as DMA-buf file descriptors.
The basic problem userspace tries to solve is that drivers might get the same
fd through two different code paths.
For example application using OpenGL/Vulkan for rendering and VA-API for video
decoding/encoding at the same time.
Both APIs get a fd which identifies the device to use. It can be the same, but
it doesn't have to.
If it's the same device driver connection (or in kernel speak underlying struct
file) then you can optimize away importing and exporting of buffers for example.
It's not just about optimization. Mesa needs to know this for correct tracking
of GEM handles. If it guesses incorrectly, there can be misbehaviour.
Oh, yeah good point as well.
I think we can say in general that if two userspace driver libraries
would mess with the state of an fd at the same time without knowing of
each other bad things would happen.
Regards,
Christian.
