Linaro-mm-sig October 2025

linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org

27 participants
61 discussions

Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: call back alloc_pages_bulk_list since it is useful

by David Hildenbrand

On 14.10.25 10:32, zhaoyang.huang wrote: > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang(a)unisoc.com> Probably the subject should be "mm: reintroduce alloc_pages_bulk_list()" > > commit c8b979530f27 ("mm: alloc_pages_bulk_noprof: drop page_list > argument") drops alloc_pages_bulk_list. This commit would like to call back > it since it is proved to be helpful to the drivers which allocate a bulk of > pages(see patch of 2 in this series ). "Let's reintroduce it so we can us for bulk allocation in the context of XXX next." > I do notice that Matthew's comment of the time cost of iterating a list. > However, I also observed in our test that the extra page_array's allocation > could be more expensive than cpu iteration when direct reclaiming happens > when ram is low[1]. IMHO, could we leave the API here to have the users > choose between the array or list according to their scenarios. I'd prefer if we avoid reintroducing this interface. How many pages are you intending to allocate? Wouldn't a smaller array on the stack be sufficient? -- Cheers David / dhildenb

2 weeks, 1 day

Re: [PATCH 2/2] driver: dma-buf: use alloc_pages_bulk_list for order-0 allocation

by Matthew Wilcox

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 09:12:07AM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > > Could be that we need to make this behavior conditional, but somebody would need to come up with some really good arguments to justify the complexity. > ok, should we use CONFIG_DMA_BUF_BULK_ALLOCATION or a variable > controlled by sysfs interface? No. Explain what you're trying to solve, because you haven't yet.

2 weeks, 2 days

Re: [PATCH 2/2] driver: dma-buf: use alloc_pages_bulk_list for order-0 allocation

by Christian König

On 14.10.25 17:10, Petr Tesarik wrote: > On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 15:04:14 +0200 > Christian König <christian.koenig(a)amd.com> wrote: > >> On 14.10.25 14:44, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 7:59 PM Christian König >>> <christian.koenig(a)amd.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 14.10.25 10:32, zhaoyang.huang wrote: >>>>> From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang(a)unisoc.com> >>>>> >>>>> The size of once dma-buf allocation could be dozens MB or much more >>>>> which introduce a loop of allocating several thousands of order-0 pages. >>>>> Furthermore, the concurrent allocation could have dma-buf allocation enter >>>>> direct-reclaim during the loop. This commit would like to eliminate the >>>>> above two affections by introducing alloc_pages_bulk_list in dma-buf's >>>>> order-0 allocation. This patch is proved to be conditionally helpful >>>>> in 18MB allocation as decreasing the time from 24604us to 6555us and no >>>>> harm when bulk allocation can't be done(fallback to single page >>>>> allocation) >>>> >>>> Well that sounds like an absolutely horrible idea. >>>> >>>> See the handling of allocating only from specific order is *exactly* there to avoid the behavior of bulk allocation. >>>> >>>> What you seem to do with this patch here is to add on top of the behavior to avoid allocating large chunks from the buddy the behavior to allocate large chunks from the buddy because that is faster. >>> emm, this patch doesn't change order-8 and order-4's allocation >>> behaviour but just to replace the loop of order-0 allocations into >>> once bulk allocation in the fallback way. What is your concern about >>> this? >> >> As far as I know the bulk allocation favors splitting large pages into smaller ones instead of allocating smaller pages first. That's where the performance benefit comes from. >> >> But that is exactly what we try to avoid here by allocating only certain order of pages. > > This is a good question, actually. Yes, bulk alloc will split large > pages if there are insufficient pages on the pcp free list. But is > dma-buf indeed trying to avoid it, or is it merely using an inefficient > API? And does it need the extra speed? Even if it leads to increased > fragmentation? DMA-buf-heaps is completly intentionally trying rather hard to avoid splitting large pages. That's why you have the distinction between HIGH_ORDER_GFP and LOW_ORDER_GFP as well. Keep in mind that this is mostly used on embedded system with only small amounts of memory. Not entering direct reclaim and instead preferring to split large pages until they are used up is an absolutely no-go for most use cases as far as I can see. Could be that we need to make this behavior conditional, but somebody would need to come up with some really good arguments to justify the complexity. Regards, Christian. > > Petr T

2 weeks, 2 days

Re: [PATCH 0/2] optimization of dma-buf system_heap allocation

by Matthew Wilcox

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:32:28PM +0800, zhaoyang.huang wrote: > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang(a)unisoc.com> > > This series of patches would like to introduce alloc_pages_bulk_list in > dma-buf which need to call back the API for page allocation. Start with the problem you're trying to solve.

2 weeks, 2 days

Re: [PATCH 2/2] driver: dma-buf: use alloc_pages_bulk_list for order-0 allocation

by Christian König

On 14.10.25 14:44, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 7:59 PM Christian König > <christian.koenig(a)amd.com> wrote: >> >> On 14.10.25 10:32, zhaoyang.huang wrote: >>> From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang(a)unisoc.com> >>> >>> The size of once dma-buf allocation could be dozens MB or much more >>> which introduce a loop of allocating several thousands of order-0 pages. >>> Furthermore, the concurrent allocation could have dma-buf allocation enter >>> direct-reclaim during the loop. This commit would like to eliminate the >>> above two affections by introducing alloc_pages_bulk_list in dma-buf's >>> order-0 allocation. This patch is proved to be conditionally helpful >>> in 18MB allocation as decreasing the time from 24604us to 6555us and no >>> harm when bulk allocation can't be done(fallback to single page >>> allocation) >> >> Well that sounds like an absolutely horrible idea. >> >> See the handling of allocating only from specific order is *exactly* there to avoid the behavior of bulk allocation. >> >> What you seem to do with this patch here is to add on top of the behavior to avoid allocating large chunks from the buddy the behavior to allocate large chunks from the buddy because that is faster. > emm, this patch doesn't change order-8 and order-4's allocation > behaviour but just to replace the loop of order-0 allocations into > once bulk allocation in the fallback way. What is your concern about > this? As far as I know the bulk allocation favors splitting large pages into smaller ones instead of allocating smaller pages first. That's where the performance benefit comes from. But that is exactly what we try to avoid here by allocating only certain order of pages. Regards, Christian. >> >> So this change here doesn't looks like it will fly very high. Please explain what you're actually trying to do, just optimize allocation time? >> >> Regards, >> Christian. >> >>> Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang(a)unisoc.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++---------- >>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c >>> index bbe7881f1360..71b028c63bd8 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c >>> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c >>> @@ -300,8 +300,8 @@ static const struct dma_buf_ops system_heap_buf_ops = { >>> .release = system_heap_dma_buf_release, >>> }; >>> >>> -static struct page *alloc_largest_available(unsigned long size, >>> - unsigned int max_order) >>> +static void alloc_largest_available(unsigned long size, >>> + unsigned int max_order, unsigned int *num_pages, struct list_head *list) >>> { >>> struct page *page; >>> int i; >>> @@ -312,12 +312,19 @@ static struct page *alloc_largest_available(unsigned long size, >>> if (max_order < orders[i]) >>> continue; >>> >>> - page = alloc_pages(order_flags[i], orders[i]); >>> - if (!page) >>> + if (orders[i]) { >>> + page = alloc_pages(order_flags[i], orders[i]); >>> + if (page) { >>> + list_add(&page->lru, list); >>> + *num_pages = 1; >>> + } >>> + } else >>> + *num_pages = alloc_pages_bulk_list(LOW_ORDER_GFP, size / PAGE_SIZE, list); >>> + >>> + if (list_empty(list)) >>> continue; >>> - return page; >>> + return; >>> } >>> - return NULL; >>> } >>> >>> static struct dma_buf *system_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, >>> @@ -335,6 +342,8 @@ static struct dma_buf *system_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, >>> struct list_head pages; >>> struct page *page, *tmp_page; >>> int i, ret = -ENOMEM; >>> + unsigned int num_pages; >>> + LIST_HEAD(head); >>> >>> buffer = kzalloc(sizeof(*buffer), GFP_KERNEL); >>> if (!buffer) >>> @@ -348,6 +357,8 @@ static struct dma_buf *system_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, >>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pages); >>> i = 0; >>> while (size_remaining > 0) { >>> + num_pages = 0; >>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&head); >>> /* >>> * Avoid trying to allocate memory if the process >>> * has been killed by SIGKILL >>> @@ -357,14 +368,15 @@ static struct dma_buf *system_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, >>> goto free_buffer; >>> } >>> >>> - page = alloc_largest_available(size_remaining, max_order); >>> - if (!page) >>> + alloc_largest_available(size_remaining, max_order, &num_pages, &head); >>> + if (!num_pages) >>> goto free_buffer; >>> >>> - list_add_tail(&page->lru, &pages); >>> - size_remaining -= page_size(page); >>> - max_order = compound_order(page); >>> - i++; >>> + list_splice_tail(&head, &pages); >>> + max_order = folio_order(lru_to_folio(&head)); >>> + size_remaining -= PAGE_SIZE * (num_pages << max_order); >>> + i += num_pages; >>> + >>> } >>> >>> table = &buffer->sg_table; >>

2 weeks, 2 days

Re: [PATCH 2/2] driver: dma-buf: use alloc_pages_bulk_list for order-0 allocation

by Christian König

On 14.10.25 10:32, zhaoyang.huang wrote: > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang(a)unisoc.com> > > The size of once dma-buf allocation could be dozens MB or much more > which introduce a loop of allocating several thousands of order-0 pages. > Furthermore, the concurrent allocation could have dma-buf allocation enter > direct-reclaim during the loop. This commit would like to eliminate the > above two affections by introducing alloc_pages_bulk_list in dma-buf's > order-0 allocation. This patch is proved to be conditionally helpful > in 18MB allocation as decreasing the time from 24604us to 6555us and no > harm when bulk allocation can't be done(fallback to single page > allocation) Well that sounds like an absolutely horrible idea. See the handling of allocating only from specific order is *exactly* there to avoid the behavior of bulk allocation. What you seem to do with this patch here is to add on top of the behavior to avoid allocating large chunks from the buddy the behavior to allocate large chunks from the buddy because that is faster. So this change here doesn't looks like it will fly very high. Please explain what you're actually trying to do, just optimize allocation time? Regards, Christian. > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang(a)unisoc.com> > --- > drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c > index bbe7881f1360..71b028c63bd8 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c > @@ -300,8 +300,8 @@ static const struct dma_buf_ops system_heap_buf_ops = { > .release = system_heap_dma_buf_release, > }; > > -static struct page *alloc_largest_available(unsigned long size, > - unsigned int max_order) > +static void alloc_largest_available(unsigned long size, > + unsigned int max_order, unsigned int *num_pages, struct list_head *list) > { > struct page *page; > int i; > @@ -312,12 +312,19 @@ static struct page *alloc_largest_available(unsigned long size, > if (max_order < orders[i]) > continue; > > - page = alloc_pages(order_flags[i], orders[i]); > - if (!page) > + if (orders[i]) { > + page = alloc_pages(order_flags[i], orders[i]); > + if (page) { > + list_add(&page->lru, list); > + *num_pages = 1; > + } > + } else > + *num_pages = alloc_pages_bulk_list(LOW_ORDER_GFP, size / PAGE_SIZE, list); > + > + if (list_empty(list)) > continue; > - return page; > + return; > } > - return NULL; > } > > static struct dma_buf *system_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, > @@ -335,6 +342,8 @@ static struct dma_buf *system_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, > struct list_head pages; > struct page *page, *tmp_page; > int i, ret = -ENOMEM; > + unsigned int num_pages; > + LIST_HEAD(head); > > buffer = kzalloc(sizeof(*buffer), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!buffer) > @@ -348,6 +357,8 @@ static struct dma_buf *system_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pages); > i = 0; > while (size_remaining > 0) { > + num_pages = 0; > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&head); > /* > * Avoid trying to allocate memory if the process > * has been killed by SIGKILL > @@ -357,14 +368,15 @@ static struct dma_buf *system_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, > goto free_buffer; > } > > - page = alloc_largest_available(size_remaining, max_order); > - if (!page) > + alloc_largest_available(size_remaining, max_order, &num_pages, &head); > + if (!num_pages) > goto free_buffer; > > - list_add_tail(&page->lru, &pages); > - size_remaining -= page_size(page); > - max_order = compound_order(page); > - i++; > + list_splice_tail(&head, &pages); > + max_order = folio_order(lru_to_folio(&head)); > + size_remaining -= PAGE_SIZE * (num_pages << max_order); > + i += num_pages; > + > } > > table = &buffer->sg_table;

2 weeks, 2 days

[PATCH 1/2] dma-buf: replace "#if" with just "if"

by Christian König

No need to conditional compile that code, let the compilers dead code elimination handle it instead. Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig(a)amd.com> --- drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c index 2bcf9ceca997..2305bb2cc1f1 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c @@ -1141,8 +1141,7 @@ struct sg_table *dma_buf_map_attachment(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach, } mangle_sg_table(sg_table); -#ifdef CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG - { + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG)) { struct scatterlist *sg; u64 addr; int len; @@ -1154,10 +1153,10 @@ struct sg_table *dma_buf_map_attachment(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach, if (!PAGE_ALIGNED(addr) || !PAGE_ALIGNED(len)) { pr_debug("%s: addr %llx or len %x is not page aligned!\n", __func__, addr, len); + break; } } } -#endif /* CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG */ return sg_table; error_unmap: -- 2.43.0

2 weeks, 3 days

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] accel: Add Arm Ethos-U NPU driver

by Rob Herring

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 2:22 PM Frank Li <Frank.li(a)nxp.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 03:00:49PM -0500, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: > > Add a driver for Arm Ethos-U65/U85 NPUs. The Ethos-U NPU has a > > relatively simple interface with single command stream to describe > > buffers, operation settings, and network operations. It supports up to 8 > > memory regions (though no h/w bounds on a region). The Ethos NPUs > > are designed to use an SRAM for scratch memory. Region 2 is reserved > > for SRAM (like the downstream driver stack and compiler). Userspace > > doesn't need access to the SRAM. > > > ... > > + > > +static int ethosu_init(struct ethosu_device *ethosudev) > > +{ > > + int ret; > > + u32 id, config; > > + > > + ret = devm_pm_runtime_enable(ethosudev->base.dev); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > + ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(ethosudev->base.dev); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > + pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(ethosudev->base.dev, 50); > > + pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(ethosudev->base.dev); > > pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() should be after last register read > readl_relaxed(ethosudev->regs + NPU_REG_CONFIG); > > incase schedule happen between pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(ethosudev->base.dev); > and readl(). All the call does is enable autosuspend. I don't think it matters exactly when we enable it. We already did a get preventing autosuspend until we do a put. > > + /* If PM is disabled, we need to call ethosu_device_resume() manually. */ > > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM)) { > > + ret = ethosu_device_resume(ethosudev->base.dev); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + } > > + > > + ethosudev->npu_info.id = id = readl_relaxed(ethosudev->regs + NPU_REG_ID); > > + ethosudev->npu_info.config = config = readl_relaxed(ethosudev->regs + NPU_REG_CONFIG); > ... > > + > > +/** > > + * ethosu_gem_create_with_handle() - Create a GEM object and attach it to a handle. > > + * @file: DRM file. > > + * @ddev: DRM device. > > + * @size: Size of the GEM object to allocate. > > + * @flags: Combination of drm_ethosu_bo_flags flags. > > + * @handle: Pointer holding the handle pointing to the new GEM object. > > + * > > + * Return: Zero on success > > + */ > > +int ethosu_gem_create_with_handle(struct drm_file *file, > > + struct drm_device *ddev, > > + u64 *size, u32 flags, u32 *handle) > > +{ > > + int ret; > > + struct drm_gem_dma_object *mem; > > + struct ethosu_gem_object *bo; > > move 'ret' here to keep reverise christmas tree order. Is that the order DRM likes? It's got to be the dumbest coding standard we have. > > + > > + mem = drm_gem_dma_create(ddev, *size); > > + if (IS_ERR(mem)) > > + return PTR_ERR(mem); > > + > > + bo = to_ethosu_bo(&mem->base); > > + bo->flags = flags; > > + > > + /* > > + * Allocate an id of idr table where the obj is registered > > + * and handle has the id what user can see. > > + */ > > + ret = drm_gem_handle_create(file, &mem->base, handle); > > + if (!ret) > > + *size = bo->base.base.size; > > + > > + /* drop reference from allocate - handle holds it now. */ > > + drm_gem_object_put(&mem->base); > > + > > + return ret; > > +} > > + > ... > > + > > +static void cmd_state_init(struct cmd_state *st) > > +{ > > + /* Initialize to all 1s to detect missing setup */ > > + memset(st, 0xff, sizeof(*st)); > > +} > > + > > +static u64 cmd_to_addr(u32 *cmd) > > +{ > > + return ((u64)((cmd[0] & 0xff0000) << 16)) | cmd[1]; > > will FIELD_PREP helpful? Like this?: return ((u64)FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(23, 16), cmd[0]) << 32) | cmd[1]; Questionable to me if that's better... > > > +} > > + > > +static u64 dma_length(struct ethosu_validated_cmdstream_info *info, > > + struct dma_state *dma_st, struct dma *dma) > > +{ > > + s8 mode = dma_st->mode; > > + u64 len = dma->len; > > + > > + if (mode >= 1) { > > + len += dma->stride[0]; > > + len *= dma_st->size0; > > + } > > + if (mode == 2) { > > + len += dma->stride[1]; > > + len *= dma_st->size1; > > + } > > + if (dma->region >= 0) > > + info->region_size[dma->region] = max(info->region_size[dma->region], > > + len + dma->offset); > > + > > + return len; > > +} > > + > ... > > > + > > +static void ethosu_job_handle_irq(struct ethosu_device *dev) > > +{ > > + u32 status; > > + > > + pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dev->base.dev); > > I think don't need pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() here because > pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() already call pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(). > > only mark last busy without pm_runtime_put() can't affect run time pm > state, still in active state. Yes, agreed. Copied from rocket, so Tomeu, you may want to look at that. > > > + > > + status = readl_relaxed(dev->regs + NPU_REG_STATUS); > > + > > + if (status & (STATUS_BUS_STATUS | STATUS_CMD_PARSE_ERR)) { > > + dev_err(dev->base.dev, "Error IRQ - %x\n", status); > > + drm_sched_fault(&dev->sched); > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + scoped_guard(mutex, &dev->job_lock) { > > + if (dev->in_flight_job) { > > + dma_fence_signal(dev->in_flight_job->done_fence); > > + pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dev->base.dev); > > + dev->in_flight_job = NULL; > > + } > > + } > > +} > > + > ... > > + > > +int ethosu_job_init(struct ethosu_device *dev) > > +{ > > + struct drm_sched_init_args args = { > > + .ops = &ethosu_sched_ops, > > + .num_rqs = DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_COUNT, > > + .credit_limit = 1, > > + .timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(JOB_TIMEOUT_MS), > > + .name = dev_name(dev->base.dev), > > + .dev = dev->base.dev, > > + }; > > + int ret; > > + > > + spin_lock_init(&dev->fence_lock); > > + mutex_init(&dev->job_lock); > > + mutex_init(&dev->sched_lock); > > now perfer use dev_mutex_init(). $ git grep dev_mutex_init (END) Huh??

2 weeks, 6 days

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: npu: Add Arm Ethos-U65/U85

by Rob Herring

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 1:54 PM Frank Li <Frank.li(a)nxp.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 03:00:48PM -0500, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: > > Add a binding schema for Arm Ethos-U65/U85 NPU. The Arm Ethos-U NPUs are > > designed for edge AI inference applications. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh(a)kernel.org> > > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/npu/arm,ethos.yaml | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/npu/arm,ethos.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/npu/arm,ethos.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..716c4997f976 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/npu/arm,ethos.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/npu/arm,ethos.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: Arm Ethos U65/U85 > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Rob Herring <robh(a)kernel.org> > > + > > +description: > > > + The Arm Ethos-U NPUs are designed for IoT inference applications. The NPUs > > + can accelerate 8-bit and 16-bit integer quantized networks: > > + > > + Transformer networks (U85 only) > > + Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) > > + Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) > > + > > + Further documentation is available here: > > + > > + U65 TRM: https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102023/ > > + U85 TRM: https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102685/ > > + > > +properties: > > + compatible: > > + oneOf: > > + - items: > > + - enum: > > + - fsl,imx93-npu > > + - const: arm,ethos-u65 > > + - items: > > + - {} > > what's means {} here ?, just not allow arm,ethos-u85 alone? Yes, u85 support is currently on a FVP model. The naming for it isn't really clear yet nor is it clear if it ever will be. So really just a placeholder until there is a chip using it. It keeps folks from using just the fallback. > > Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li(a)nxp.com> Thanks, Rob

2 weeks, 6 days

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: use SB_I_NOEXEC and SB_I_NODEV

by Christoph Hellwig

On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 11:10:32PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > The dma-buf pseudo-filesystem should never have executable mappings nor > device nodes. Set SB_I_NOEXEC and SB_I_NODEV on the superblock to enforce > this at the filesystem level, similar to secretmem, commit 98f99394a104 > ("secretmem: use SB_I_NOEXEC"). > > Fix the syzbot-reported warning from the exec code to enforce this > requirement: Can you please just enforce this in init_pseudo? If a file system really wants to support devices or executable it can clear them, but a quick grep suggests that none of them should.

3 weeks, 2 days

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Linaro-mm-sig October 2025