wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

11 participants
84462 discussions

Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_WAIT_ANY.
by Elizabeth Figura 25 Jan '24

25 Jan '24

On Thursday, 25 January 2024 11:02:26 CST Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 23:28, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > > On Wednesday, 24 January 2024 13:52:52 CST Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 19:02, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > >> > That'd be nicer in general. I think there was some documentation that > >> > advised using timespec64 for new ioctl interfaces but it may have been > >> > outdated or misread. > >> > >> It's probably something I wrote. It depends a bit on > >> whether you have an absolute or relative timeout. If > >> the timeout is relative to the current time as I understand > >> it is here, a 64-bit number seems more logical to me. > >> > >> For absolute times, I would usually use a __kernel_timespec, > >> especially if it's CLOCK_REALTIME. In this case you would > >> also need to specify the time domain. > > > > Currently the interface does pass it as an absolute time, with the > > domain implicitly being MONOTONIC. This particular choice comes from > > process/botching-up-ioctls.rst, which is admittedly focused around GPU > > ioctls, but the rationale of having easily restartable ioctls applies > > here too. > > Ok, I was thinking of Documentation/driver-api/ioctl.rst, which > has similar recommendations. > > > (E.g. Wine does play games with signals, so we do want to be able to > > interrupt arbitrary waits with EINTR. The "usual" fast path for ntsync > > waits won't hit that, but we want to have it work.) > > > > On the other hand, if we can pass the timeout as relative, and write it > > back on exit like ppoll() does [assuming that's not proscribed], that > > would presumably be slightly better for performance. > > I've seen arguments go either way between absolute and relative > times, just pick whatever works best for you here. > > > When writing the patch I just picked the recommended option, and didn't > > bother doing any micro-optimizations afterward. > > > > What's the rationale for using timespec for absolute or written-back > > timeouts, instead of dealing in ns directly? I'm afraid it's not > > obvious to me. > > There is no hard rule either way, I mainly didn't like the > indirect pointer to the timespec that you have here. For > traditional unix-style interfaces, a timespec with CLOCK_REALTIME > times usually makes sense since that is what user space is > already using elsewhere, but you probably don't need to > worry about that. In theory, the single u64 CLOCK_REALTIME > nanoseconds have the problem of no longer working after year > 2262, but with CLOCK_MONOTONIC that is not a concern anyway. > > Between embedding a __u64 nanosecond value and embedding > a __kernel_timespec, I would pick whichever avoids converting > a __u64 back into a timespec, as that is an expensive > operation at least on 32-bit code. Makes sense. I'll probably switch to using a relative and written-back u64 then, thanks!

1 0

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] ntsync: Introduce the ntsync driver and character device.
by Elizabeth Figura 25 Jan '24

25 Jan '24

On Thursday, 25 January 2024 10:47:49 CST Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024, at 04:42, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > > On Wednesday, 24 January 2024 16:56:23 CST Elizabeth Figura wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 24 January 2024 15:26:15 CST Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 4:59 PM Elizabeth Figura <zfigura(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > >> [There is also a potential problem where some broken applications > >> create a million (literally) sync objects. Making these into files runs > >> into NOFILE. We did specifically push distributions and systemd to > >> increase those limits because an older solution *did* use eventfds and > >> *did* run into those limits. Since that push was successful I don't > >> know if this is *actually* a concern anymore, but avoiding files is > >> probably not a bad thing either.] > > > > Of course, looking at it from a kernel maintainer's perspective, it > > wouldn't be insane to do this anyway. If we at some point do start to > > care about cross- process isolation in this way, or if another NT > > emulator wants to use this interface and does care about cross-process > > isolation, it'll be necessary. At least it'd make sense to make them > > separate files even if we don't implement granular permission handling > > just yet. > > I can think of a few other possible benefits of going with > per-mutex file descriptors: > > - being able to use poll() for waiting on them individually in > combination with other file descriptor based events (socket, > signalfd, pidfd, ...) I can say for sure this isn't going to be useful for Wine, at least not with the current design. It also doesn't really mesh well with the NT design in the first place. NTSYNC_IOC_WAIT_ANY differs from poll() in two major ways: it consumes state of most object types, and (as coded here) it needs the owner thread ID to be specifically passed for mutexes. Anyway, as Alexandre has informed me I clearly have misunderstood our requirements, so I'm going to try to put together something using files instead.

1 0

Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_WAIT_ANY.
by Elizabeth Figura 24 Jan '24

24 Jan '24

On Wednesday, 24 January 2024 13:52:52 CST Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 19:02, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > > On Wednesday, 24 January 2024 01:56:52 CST Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 01:40, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > >> > >> > + if (args->timeout) { > >> > + struct timespec64 to; > >> > + > >> > + if (get_timespec64(&to, u64_to_user_ptr(args->timeout))) > >> > + return -EFAULT; > >> > + if (!timespec64_valid(&to)) > >> > + return -EINVAL; > >> > + > >> > + timeout = timespec64_to_ns(&to); > >> > + } > >> > >> Have you considered just passing the nanosecond value here? > >> Since you do not appear to write it back, that would avoid > >> the complexities of dealing with timespec layout differences > >> and indirection. > > > > That'd be nicer in general. I think there was some documentation that advised > > using timespec64 for new ioctl interfaces but it may have been outdated or > > misread. > > It's probably something I wrote. It depends a bit on > whether you have an absolute or relative timeout. If > the timeout is relative to the current time as I understand > it is here, a 64-bit number seems more logical to me. > > For absolute times, I would usually use a __kernel_timespec, > especially if it's CLOCK_REALTIME. In this case you would > also need to specify the time domain. Currently the interface does pass it as an absolute time, with the domain implicitly being MONOTONIC. This particular choice comes from process/botching-up-ioctls.rst, which is admittedly focused around GPU ioctls, but the rationale of having easily restartable ioctls applies here too. (E.g. Wine does play games with signals, so we do want to be able to interrupt arbitrary waits with EINTR. The "usual" fast path for ntsync waits won't hit that, but we want to have it work.) On the other hand, if we can pass the timeout as relative, and write it back on exit like ppoll() does [assuming that's not proscribed], that would presumably be slightly better for performance. When writing the patch I just picked the recommended option, and didn't bother doing any micro-optimizations afterward. What's the rationale for using timespec for absolute or written-back timeouts, instead of dealing in ns directly? I'm afraid it's not obvious to me. --Zeb

1 0

Re: [RFC PATCH 8/9] ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_PUT_MUTEX.
by Elizabeth Figura 24 Jan '24

24 Jan '24

On Wednesday, 24 January 2024 01:42:19 CST Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 01:40, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > > @@ -738,6 +803,8 @@ static long ntsync_char_ioctl(struct file *file, > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ntsync.h b/include/uapi/linux/ntsync.h > > index 26d1b3d4847f..2e44e7e77776 100644 > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/ntsync.h > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ntsync.h > > @@ -46,5 +46,7 @@ struct ntsync_wait_args { > > struct ntsync_wait_args) > > #define NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_MUTEX _IOWR(NTSYNC_IOC_BASE, 5, \ > > struct ntsync_mutex_args) > > +#define NTSYNC_IOC_PUT_MUTEX _IOWR(NTSYNC_IOC_BASE, 6, \ > > + struct ntsync_mutex_args) > > > > In your implementation, this argument is not written back to > user space, so I think this should be _IOW rather than than _IORW. > > Again, no practical difference here. Hm, but there is a put_user() at the end of the function, or am I missing something?

1 0

Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_WAIT_ANY.
by Elizabeth Figura 24 Jan '24

24 Jan '24

On Wednesday, 24 January 2024 01:56:52 CST Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 01:40, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > > > + if (args->timeout) { > > + struct timespec64 to; > > + > > + if (get_timespec64(&to, u64_to_user_ptr(args->timeout))) > > + return -EFAULT; > > + if (!timespec64_valid(&to)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + timeout = timespec64_to_ns(&to); > > + } > > Have you considered just passing the nanosecond value here? > Since you do not appear to write it back, that would avoid > the complexities of dealing with timespec layout differences > and indirection. That'd be nicer in general. I think there was some documentation that advised using timespec64 for new ioctl interfaces but it may have been outdated or misread. > > > + ids = kmalloc_array(count, sizeof(*ids), GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!ids) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + if (copy_from_user(ids, u64_to_user_ptr(args->objs), > > + array_size(count, sizeof(*ids)))) { > > + kfree(ids); > > + return -EFAULT; > > + } > > This looks like memdup_user() would be slightly simpler. That's useful, thanks.

1 0

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ntsync: Reserve a minor device number and ioctl range.
by Elizabeth Figura 24 Jan '24

24 Jan '24

On Wednesday, 24 January 2024 06:32:13 CST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 09:43:09PM -0600, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > > > Why do you need a fixed minor number? Can't your userspace handle > > > dynamic numbers? What systems require a static value? > > > > I believe I added this because it's necessary for MODULE_ALIAS (and, more > > broadly, because I was following the example of vaguely comparable devices > > like /dev/loop-control). I suppose I could instead just remove MODULE_ALIAS > > (or even remove the ability to compile ntsync as a module entirely). > > Do you really need MODULE_ALIAS()? Having it for char devices to be > auto-loaded is not generally considered a good idea anymore as systems > should have the module loaded before userspace goes and asks for it. > > It also reduces suprises when any random userspace program can cause > kernel modules to be loaded for no real reason. I think there's no reason we can't make loading the system's problem. I'll remove it in v2.

1 0

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] ntsync: Introduce the ntsync driver and character device.
by Elizabeth Figura 24 Jan '24

24 Jan '24

On Wednesday, 24 January 2024 01:38:52 CST Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 01:40, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > > ntsync uses a misc device as the simplest and least intrusive uAPI interface. > > > > Each file description on the device represents an isolated NT instance, intended > > to correspond to a single NT virtual machine. > > > > Signed-off-by: Elizabeth Figura <zfigura(a)codeweavers.com> > > I'm looking at the ioctl interface to ensure it's well-formed. > > Your patches look ok from that perspective, but there are a > few minor things I would check for consistency here: > > > + > > +static const struct file_operations ntsync_fops = { > > + .owner = THIS_MODULE, > > + .open = ntsync_char_open, > > + .release = ntsync_char_release, > > + .unlocked_ioctl = ntsync_char_ioctl, > > + .compat_ioctl = ntsync_char_ioctl, > > + .llseek = no_llseek, > > +}; > > The .compat_ioctl pointer should point to compat_ptr_ioctl() > since the actual ioctl commands all take pointers instead > of interpreting the argument as a number. > > On x86 and arm64 this won't make a difference as compat_ptr() > is a nop. Thanks; will fix.

1 0

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ntsync: Reserve a minor device number and ioctl range.
by Elizabeth Figura 24 Jan '24

24 Jan '24

On Tuesday, 23 January 2024 18:54:02 CST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 06:40:21PM -0600, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Elizabeth Figura <zfigura(a)codeweavers.com> > > --- > > Note, we can't take patches without any changelog text, and you don't > want us to :) > > > Documentation/admin-guide/devices.txt | 3 ++- > > Documentation/userspace-api/ioctl/ioctl-number.rst | 2 ++ > > drivers/misc/ntsync.c | 3 ++- > > include/linux/miscdevice.h | 1 + > > 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/devices.txt > > b/Documentation/admin-guide/devices.txt index 94c98be1329a..041404397ee5 > > 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/devices.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/devices.txt > > @@ -376,8 +376,9 @@ > > > > 240 = /dev/userio Serio driver testing device > > 241 = /dev/vhost-vsock Host kernel driver for virtio vsock > > 242 = /dev/rfkill Turning off radio transmissions (rfkill) > > > > + 243 = /dev/ntsync NT synchronization primitive device > > > > - 243-254 Reserved for local use > > + 244-254 Reserved for local use > > Why do you need a fixed minor number? Can't your userspace handle > dynamic numbers? What systems require a static value? I believe I added this because it's necessary for MODULE_ALIAS (and, more broadly, because I was following the example of vaguely comparable devices like /dev/loop-control). I suppose I could instead just remove MODULE_ALIAS (or even remove the ability to compile ntsync as a module entirely). It's a bit difficult to figure out what's the preferred way to organize things like this (there not being a lot of precedent for this kind of driver) so I'd appreciate any direction. --Zeb

1 0

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/9] ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_SEM and NTSYNC_IOC_DELETE.
by Elizabeth Figura 24 Jan '24

24 Jan '24

On Tuesday, 23 January 2024 19:14:17 CST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 06:40:22PM -0600, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > > +static int ntsync_create_sem(struct ntsync_device *dev, void __user > > *argp) > > +{ > > + struct ntsync_sem_args __user *user_args = argp; > > + struct ntsync_sem_args args; > > + struct ntsync_obj *sem; > > + __u32 id; > > + int ret; > > + > > + if (copy_from_user(&args, argp, sizeof(args))) > > + return -EFAULT; > > + > > + if (args.count > args.max) > > + return -EINVAL; > > No bounds checking on count or max? > > What's the relationship between count and max? Indeed, no bounds checking. The counter is just the semaphore's internal value and has no meaning other than that. It's basically like an EFD_SEMAPHORE, except that the maximum is configurable rather than always being 2**64-2. > Some sort of real > documentation is needed here, the changelog needs to explain this. Or > somewhere, but as-is, this patch series is pretty unreviewable as I > can't figure out how to review it because I don't know what it wants to > do. There is some comprehensive documentation in the series, but for ease of review I will try to write a basic description of the API in each relevant patch in v2.

1 0

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] NT synchronization primitive driver
by Elizabeth Figura 24 Jan '24

24 Jan '24

On Tuesday, 23 January 2024 18:59:35 CST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 06:40:19PM -0600, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > > == Patches == > > > > This is the first part of a 32-patch series. The series comprises 17 patches > > which contain the actual implementation, 13 which provide self-tests, 1 to > > update the MAINTAINERS file, and 1 to add API documentation. > > 32 patches? I only see 9 here, why not submit them all? Because Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst makes a point of asking people not to submit large patch series (and it matches the expectation of other projects I've worked with—that patches would be submitted and reviewed a few at a time). I suppose I've misunderstood that advice, though. I'll resend with the entire series. Sorry for the noise.

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

wine-devel