Re: [PATCH 2/2] dmabuf/tracing: Add dma-buf trace events

From: Kalesh Singh
Date: Tue Aug 04 2020 - 11:44:58 EST

On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 02:09:13AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > IOW, what the hell is that horror for? You do realize, for example, that there's
> > such thing as dup(), right? And dup2() as well. And while we are at it, how
> > do you keep track of removals, considering the fact that you can stick a file
> > reference into SCM_RIGHTS datagram sent to yourself, close descriptors and an hour
> > later pick that datagram, suddenly getting descriptor back?
> >
> > Besides, "I have no descriptors left" != "I can't be currently sitting in the middle
> > of syscall on that sucker"; close() does *NOT* terminate ongoing operations.
> >
> > You are looking at the drastically wrong abstraction level. Please, describe what
> > it is that you are trying to achieve.

Hi Al. Thank you for the comments. Ultimately what we need is to identify processes
that hold a file reference to the dma-buf. Unfortunately we can't use only
explicit dma_buf_get/dma_buf_put to track them because when an FD is being shared
between processes the file references are taken implicitly.

For example, on the sender side:
unix_dgram_sendmsg -> send_scm -> __send_scm -> scm_fp_copy -> fget_raw
and on the receiver side:
unix_dgram_recvmsg -> scm_recv -> scm_detach_fds -> __scm_install_fd -> get_file

I understand now that fd_install is not an appropriate abstraction level to track these.
Is there a more appropriate alternative where we could use to track these implicit file

> _IF_ it's "who keeps a particularly long-lived sucker pinned", I would suggest
> fuser(1) run when you detect that kind of long-lived dmabuf. With events generated
> by their constructors and destructors, and detection of longevity done based on
> that.
> But that's only a semi-blind guess at the things you are trying to achieve; please,
> describe what it really is.