[PATCH] drm/syncobj: add sync obj wait interface. (v6)

[Jason Ekstrand]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12 July 2017 at 17:39, Christian König <deathsimple at vodafone.de> wrote:
> > Am 11.07.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Jason Ekstrand:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Christian König <
> deathsimple at vodafone.de>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> [SNIP]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>      If we ever want to share fences across processes (which we do),
> >>>>>      then this needs to be sorted in the kernel.
> >>>>
> >>>>      That would clearly get a NAK from my side, even Microsoft forbids
> >>>>      wait before signal because you can easily end up in deadlock
> >>>> situations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please don't NAK things that are required by the API specification and
> >>>> CTS tests.
> >>>
> >>> There is no requirement for every aspect of the Vulkan API
> specification
> >>> to be mirrored 1:1 in the kernel <-> userspace API. We have to work out
> >>> what makes sense at each level.
> >>
> >>
> >> Exactly, if we have a synchronization problem between two processes that
> >> should be solved in userspace.
> >>
> >> E.g. if process A hasn't submitted it's work to the kernel it should
> flush
> >> it's commands before sending a flip event to the compositor.
> >
> >
> > Ok, I think there is some confusion here on what is being proposed.  Here
> > are some things that are *not* being proposed:
> >
> >  1. This does *not* allow a client to block another client's GPU work
> > indefinitely.  This is entirely for a CPU wait API to allow for a "wait
> for
> > submit" as well as a "wait for finish".
> >
> > Yeah, that is a rather good point.
> >
> >  2. This is *not* for system compositors that need to be robust against
> > malicious clients.
> >
> > I can see the point, but I think the kernel interface should still be
> idiot
> > prove even in the unlikely case the universe suddenly stops to produce
> > idiots.
>

Fair enough.  Maybe I've spent too much time in the Vulkan world where
being an idiot is, theoretically, disallowed.  And, by "disallowed", I mean
that you're free to be one with the understanding that your process may get
straight-up killed on *any* API violation.


> > The expected use for the OPAQUE_FD is two very tightly integrated
> processes
> > which trust each other but need to be able to share synchronization
> > primitives.
> >
> > Well, that raises a really important question: What is the actual use
> case
> > for this if not communication between client and compositor?
>
> VR clients and compositors.
>

Yeah, that.  Wouldn't they want the same security guarantees as your OS
compositor?  One would think, but none of the people making VR compositors
seem to care all that much about the case of malicious clients.  In
general, they run a fairly closed platform where they aren't really running
"arbitrary" apps on their compositor.  Also, they tend to write both the
client and server sides of the VR compositor protocol and the only thing
the app touches is their API.  I'm not going to try too hard to justify
their lack of concern about deadlock, but there it is.


> > Could we do this "in userspace"?  Yes, with added kernel API.  we would
> need
> > some way of strapping a second FD onto a syncobj or combining two FDs
> into
> > one to send across the wire or something like that, then add a shared
> memory
> > segment, and then pile on a bunch of code to do cross-process condition
> > variables and state tracking.  I really don't see how that's a better
> > solution than adding a flag to the kernel API to just do what we want.
> >
> > Way to complicated.
> >
> > My thinking was rather to optionally allow a single page to be mmap()ed
> into
> > the process address space from the fd and then put a futex, pthread_cond
> or
> > X shared memory fence or anything like that into it.
>

A single page + fence sounds a lot like a DRM BO.  One of my original plans
for implementing the feature was to just use a single-page BO and do some
userspace stuff in the mapped page.  There are two problems here:

1) It could be very easy for a malicious client to map the page and then
mess up whatever CPU data structure I use for the semaphore.  I could
probably make it robust but there is an attack vector there that's going to
be tricky.
2) I have no way, on import, to tell the difference between a 4K memory
object and a fence.

Then syncobj came along and promised to solve all my problems...


> Is that easier than just waiting in the kernel, I'm not sure how
> optimised we need this path to be.
>

I don't think so.  I think it's more-or-less the same code regardless of
how it's done.  The advantage of doing it in the kernel is that it's
standardized (we don't have to both go write that userspace code) and it
doesn't have the problems stated above.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20170712/062e6fc3/attachment.html>