[PATCH] epoll: try to be a _bit_ better about file lifetimes

[Christian Brauner]

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 02:47:23PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sun, May 05, 2024 at 01:53:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 May 2024 at 13:30, Al Viro <viro at zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > 0.      special-cased ->f_count rule for ->poll() is a wart and it's
> > > better to get rid of it.
> > >
> > > 1.      fs/eventpoll.c is a steaming pile of shit and I'd be glad to see
> > > git rm taken to it.  Short of that, by all means, let's grab reference
> > > in there around the call of vfs_poll() (see (0)).
> > 
> > Agreed on 0/1.
> > 
> > > 2.      having ->poll() instances grab extra references to file passed
> > > to them is not something that should be encouraged; there's a plenty
> > > of potential problems, and "caller has it pinned, so we are fine with
> > > grabbing extra refs" is nowhere near enough to eliminate those.
> > 
> > So it's not clear why you hate it so much, since those extra
> > references are totally normal in all the other VFS paths.
> > 
> > I mean, they are perhaps not the *common* case, but we have a lot of
> > random get_file() calls sprinkled around in various places when you
> > end up passing a file descriptor off to some asynchronous operation
> > thing.
> > 
> > Yeah, I think most of them tend to be special operations (eg the tty
> > TIOCCONS ioctl to redirect the console), but it's not like vfs_ioctl()
> > is *that* different from vfs_poll. Different operation, not somehow
> > "one is more special than the other".
> > 
> > cachefiles and backing-file does it for regular IO, and drop it at IO
> > completion - not that different from what dma-buf does. It's in
> > ->read_iter() rather than ->poll(), but again: different operations,
> > but not "one of them is somehow fundamentally different".
> > 
> > > 3.      dma-buf uses of get_file() are probably safe (epoll shite aside),
> > > but they do look fishy.  That has nothing to do with epoll.
> > 
> > Now, what dma-buf basically seems to do is to avoid ref-counting its
> > own fundamental data structure, and replaces that by refcounting the
> > 'struct file' that *points* to it instead.
> > 
> > And it is a bit odd, but it actually makes some amount of sense,
> > because then what it passes around is that file pointer (and it allows
> > passing it around from user space *as* that file).
> > 
> > And honestly, if you look at why it then needs to add its refcount to
> > it all, it actually makes sense.  dma-bufs have this notion of
> > "fences" that are basically completion points for the asynchronous
> > DMA. Doing a "poll()" operation will add a note to the fence to get
> > that wakeup when it's done.
> > 
> > And yes, logically it takes a ref to the "struct dma_buf", but because
> > of how the lifetime of the dma_buf is associated with the lifetime of
> > the 'struct file', that then turns into taking a ref on the file.
> > 
> > Unusual? Yes. But not illogical. Not obviously broken. Tying the
> > lifetime of the dma_buf to the lifetime of a file that is passed along
> > makes _sense_ for that use.
> > 
> > I'm sure dma-bufs could add another level of refcounting on the
> > 'struct dma_buf' itself, and not make it be 1:1 with the file, but
> > it's not clear to me what the advantage would really be, or why it
> > would be wrong to re-use a refcount that is already there.
> 
> So there is generally another refcount, because dma_buf is just the
> cross-driver interface to some kind of real underlying buffer object from
> the various graphics related subsystems we have.
> 
> And since it's a pure file based api thing that ceases to serve any
> function once the fd/file is gone we tied all the dma_buf refcounting to
> the refcount struct file already maintains. But the underlying buffer
> object can easily outlive the dma_buf, and over the lifetime of an
> underlying buffer object you might actually end up creating different
> dma_buf api wrappers for it (but at least in drm we guarantee there's at
> most one, hence why vmwgfx does the atomic_inc_unless_zero trick, which I
> don't particularly like and isn't really needed).
> 
> But we could add another refcount, it just means we have 3 of those then
> when only really 2 are needed.

Fwiw, the TTM thing described upthread and in the other thread really
tries hard to work around the dma_buf == file lifetime choice by hooking
into the dma-buf specific release function so it can access the dmabuf
and then the file. All that seems like a pretty error prone thing to me.
So a separate refcount for dma_buf wouldn't be the worst as that would
allow that TTM thing to benefit and remove that nasty hacking into your
generic dma_buf ops. But maybe I'm the only one who sees it that way and
I'm certainly not familiar enough with dma-buf.