Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 04/10] vfio/pci: Add a helper to create a DMABUF for a BAR-map VMA
From: Matt Evans
Date: Mon Mar 23 2026 - 10:59:10 EST
Hi Alex,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 8:04 PM Alex Williamson <alex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 11:46:02 -0700
> Matt Evans <mattev@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > This helper, vfio_pci_core_mmap_prep_dmabuf(), creates a single-range
> > DMABUF for the purpose of mapping a PCI BAR. This is used in a future
> > commit by VFIO's ordinary mmap() path.
> >
> > This function transfers ownership of the VFIO device fd to the
> > DMABUF, which fput()s when it's released.
> >
> > Refactor the existing vfio_pci_core_feature_dma_buf() to split out
> > export code common to the two paths, VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_DMA_BUF and
> > this new VFIO_BAR mmap().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matt Evans <mattev@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c | 131 +++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_priv.h | 4 +
> > 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
> > index 63140528dbea..76db340ba592 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
> > @@ -82,6 +82,8 @@ static void vfio_pci_dma_buf_release(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
> > up_write(&priv->vdev->memory_lock);
> > vfio_device_put_registration(&priv->vdev->vdev);
> > }
> > + if (priv->vfile)
> > + fput(priv->vfile);
> > kfree(priv->phys_vec);
> > kfree(priv);
> > }
> > @@ -182,6 +184,41 @@ int vfio_pci_dma_buf_find_pfn(struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *vpdmabuf,
> > return -EFAULT;
> > }
> >
> > +static int vfio_pci_dmabuf_export(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
> > + struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *priv, uint32_t flags,
> > + size_t size, bool status_ok)
> > +{
> > + DEFINE_DMA_BUF_EXPORT_INFO(exp_info);
> > +
> > + if (!vfio_device_try_get_registration(&vdev->vdev))
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + exp_info.ops = &vfio_pci_dmabuf_ops;
> > + exp_info.size = size;
> > + exp_info.flags = flags;
> > + exp_info.priv = priv;
> > +
> > + priv->dmabuf = dma_buf_export(&exp_info);
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->dmabuf)) {
> > + vfio_device_put_registration(&vdev->vdev);
> > + return PTR_ERR(priv->dmabuf);
> > + }
> > +
> > + kref_init(&priv->kref);
> > + init_completion(&priv->comp);
> > +
> > + /* dma_buf_put() now frees priv */
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&priv->dmabufs_elm);
> > + down_write(&vdev->memory_lock);
> > + dma_resv_lock(priv->dmabuf->resv, NULL);
> > + priv->revoked = !status_ok;
>
> Testing __vfio_pci_memory_enabled() outside of memory_lock() is
> invalid, so passing it as a parameter outside of the semaphore is
> invalid. @status_ok is stale here.
So it is, arrrrrgh. Thank you for that; I've found a couple of other
choice bugs in that RFC, and will resolve all of this in a repost
soon.
[snip]
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The VMA gets the DMABUF file so that other users can locate
> > + * the DMABUF via a VA. Ownership of the original VFIO device
> > + * file being mmap()ed transfers to priv, and is put when the
> > + * DMABUF is released.
> > + */
> > + priv->vfile = vma->vm_file;
> > + vma->vm_file = priv->dmabuf->file;
>
> AIUI, this affects what the user sees in /proc/<pid>/maps, right?
> Previously a memory range could be clearly associated with a specific
> vfio device, now, only for vfio-pci devices, I think the range is
> associated to a nondescript dmabuf. If so, is that an acceptable, user
> visible, debugging friendly change (ex. lsof)? Thanks,
(Jason, your comment noted with thanks, replying to you both here to
save electrons.)
Great question; a formatting change there is inherent to moving to a
DMABUF (which generates a "/dmabuf:" prefix to a user-defined name).
If we can accept that it changes at all, then I agree this then should
output nice debug: at least the cdev name and resource index, and
we've the opportunity to include the BDF too. I've added this; an
example line of /proc/<pid>/maps:
ffffb8070000-ffffbc040000 rw-s 00030000 00:0b 5
/dmabuf:vfio0:0000:00:03.0/1
Note the file offset used to include the resource index up at
VFIO_PCI_OFFSET_SHIFT but this DMABUF version doesn't do that, so I'm
proposing appending a "/%u" for the index. Above is a map of BAR1,
offset 0x30000. If people feel strongly about the existing aesthetic
then we could keep the index encoded in vm_pgoff to retain the same
offset field in /proc/<pid>/maps, but it'd be less neat masking it
back out in a few places.
The default name of a DMABUF acquired through
VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_DMA_BUF would still be "/dmabuf:" and I think it
should stay this way since a better name should be supplied by
userspace. The default at least differentiates them from VFIO device
fd mappings.
Many thanks,
Matt
>
> Alex
>
> > + vma->vm_private_data = priv;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > +err_free_phys:
> > + kfree(priv->phys_vec);
> > +err_free_priv:
> > + kfree(priv);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > void vfio_pci_dma_buf_move(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, bool revoked)
> > {
> > struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *priv;
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_priv.h b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_priv.h
> > index 5cc8c85a2153..5fd3a6e00a0e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_priv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_priv.h
> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ struct vfio_pci_dma_buf {
> > size_t size;
> > struct phys_vec *phys_vec;
> > struct p2pdma_provider *provider;
> > + struct file *vfile;
> > u32 nr_ranges;
> > struct kref kref;
> > struct completion comp;
> > @@ -128,6 +129,9 @@ int vfio_pci_dma_buf_find_pfn(struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *vpdmabuf,
> > unsigned long address,
> > unsigned int order,
> > unsigned long *out_pfn);
> > +int vfio_pci_core_mmap_prep_dmabuf(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
> > + struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > + u64 phys_start, u64 pgoff, u64 req_len);
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_DMABUF
> > int vfio_pci_core_feature_dma_buf(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, u32 flags,
>