Re: Safety of opening up /dev/dma_heap/* to physically present users (udev uaccess tag) ?
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 04:07:39PM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
Hi,
Le mardi 07 mai 2024 à 21:36 +0300, Laurent Pinchart a écrit :
Shorter term, we have a problem to solve, and the best option we have found so far is to rely on dma-buf heaps as a backend for the frame buffer allocatro helper in libcamera for the use case described above. This won't work in 100% of the cases, clearly. It's a stop-gap measure until we can do better.
Considering the security concerned raised on this thread with dmabuf heap allocation not be restricted by quotas, you'd get what you want quickly with memfd + udmabuf instead (which is accounted already).
It was raised that distro don't enable udmabuf, but as stated there by Hans, in any cases distro needs to take action to make the softISP works. This alternative is easy and does not interfere in anyway with your future plan or the libcamera API. You could even have both dmabuf heap (for Raspbian) and the safer memfd+udmabuf for the distro with security concerns.
And for the long term plan, we can certainly get closer by fixing that issue with accounting. This issue also applied to v4l2 io-ops, so it would be nice to find common set of helpers to fix these exporters.
Yeah if this is just for softisp, then memfd + udmabuf is also what I was about to suggest. Not just as a stopgap, but as the real official thing.
udmabuf does kinda allow you to pin memory, but we can easily fix that by adding the right accounting and then either let mlock rlimits or cgroups kernel memory limits enforce good behavior. -Sima
On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:36:08AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 04:07:39PM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
Le mardi 07 mai 2024 à 21:36 +0300, Laurent Pinchart a écrit :
Shorter term, we have a problem to solve, and the best option we have found so far is to rely on dma-buf heaps as a backend for the frame buffer allocatro helper in libcamera for the use case described above. This won't work in 100% of the cases, clearly. It's a stop-gap measure until we can do better.
Considering the security concerned raised on this thread with dmabuf heap allocation not be restricted by quotas, you'd get what you want quickly with memfd + udmabuf instead (which is accounted already).
It was raised that distro don't enable udmabuf, but as stated there by Hans, in any cases distro needs to take action to make the softISP works. This alternative is easy and does not interfere in anyway with your future plan or the libcamera API. You could even have both dmabuf heap (for Raspbian) and the safer memfd+udmabuf for the distro with security concerns.
And for the long term plan, we can certainly get closer by fixing that issue with accounting. This issue also applied to v4l2 io-ops, so it would be nice to find common set of helpers to fix these exporters.
Yeah if this is just for softisp, then memfd + udmabuf is also what I was about to suggest. Not just as a stopgap, but as the real official thing.
Long term I still want a centralized memory allocator, at which point libcamera should stop allocating buffers at all.
udmabuf does kinda allow you to pin memory, but we can easily fix that by adding the right accounting and then either let mlock rlimits or cgroups kernel memory limits enforce good behavior.
On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 12:51:08AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:36:08AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 04:07:39PM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
Le mardi 07 mai 2024 à 21:36 +0300, Laurent Pinchart a écrit :
Shorter term, we have a problem to solve, and the best option we have found so far is to rely on dma-buf heaps as a backend for the frame buffer allocatro helper in libcamera for the use case described above. This won't work in 100% of the cases, clearly. It's a stop-gap measure until we can do better.
Considering the security concerned raised on this thread with dmabuf heap allocation not be restricted by quotas, you'd get what you want quickly with memfd + udmabuf instead (which is accounted already).
It was raised that distro don't enable udmabuf, but as stated there by Hans, in any cases distro needs to take action to make the softISP works. This alternative is easy and does not interfere in anyway with your future plan or the libcamera API. You could even have both dmabuf heap (for Raspbian) and the safer memfd+udmabuf for the distro with security concerns.
And for the long term plan, we can certainly get closer by fixing that issue with accounting. This issue also applied to v4l2 io-ops, so it would be nice to find common set of helpers to fix these exporters.
Yeah if this is just for softisp, then memfd + udmabuf is also what I was about to suggest. Not just as a stopgap, but as the real official thing.
Long term I still want a centralized memory allocator, at which point libcamera should stop allocating buffers at all.
And to be clear, udmabuf could be fine for the time being. At least as long as we don't find any shortcoming while testing it :-)
udmabuf does kinda allow you to pin memory, but we can easily fix that by adding the right accounting and then either let mlock rlimits or cgroups kernel memory limits enforce good behavior.
linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
-
Daniel Vetter -
Laurent Pinchart