On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 04:16:15PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, 3 May 2024 at 15:07, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > Suppose your program calls select() on a pipe and dmabuf, sees data to be > > read > > from pipe, reads it, closes both pipe and dmabuf and exits. > > > > Would you expect that dmabuf file would stick around for hell knows how long > > after that? I would certainly be very surprised by running into that... > > Why? > > That's the _point_ of refcounts. They make the thing they refcount > stay around until it's no longer referenced. > > Now, I agree that dmabuf's are a bit odd in how they use a 'struct > file' *as* their refcount, but hey, it's a specialty use. Unusual > perhaps, but not exactly wrong. > > I suspect that if you saw a dmabuf just have its own 'refcount_t' and > stay around until it was done, you wouldn't bat an eye at it, and it's > really just the "it uses a struct file for counting" that you are > reacting to.
*IF* those files are on purely internal filesystem, that's probably OK; do that with something on something mountable (char device, sysfs file, etc.) and you have a problem with filesystem staying busy. I'm really unfamiliar with the subsystem; it might be OK with all objects that use that for ->poll(), but that's definitely not a good thing to see in ->poll() instance in general. And code gets copied, so there really should be a big fat comment about the reasons why it's OK in this particular case. Said that, it seems that a better approach might be to have their ->release() cancel callbacks and drop fence references. Note that they *do* have refcounts - on fences. The file (well, dmabuf, really) is pinned only to protect against the situation when pending callback is still around. And Kees' observation about multiple fences is also interesting - we don't get extra fput(), but only because we get events only from one fence, which does look fishy...
