Re: [RFC PATCH 06/21] vfio/pci: Accept live update preservation request for VFIO cdev

[David Matlack]

On 2025-10-27 01:44 PM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 17:06:58 -0700 Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  static int vfio_pci_liveupdate_retrieve(struct
> > liveupdate_file_handler *handler, u64 data, struct file **file)
> >  {
> > @@ -21,10 +28,17 @@ static int vfio_pci_liveupdate_retrieve(struct
> > liveupdate_file_handler *handler, static bool
> > vfio_pci_liveupdate_can_preserve(struct liveupdate_file_handler
> > *handler, struct file *file) {
> > -	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +	struct vfio_device *device = vfio_device_from_file(file);
> > +
> > +	if (!device)
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	guard(mutex)(&device->dev_set->lock);
> > +	return vfio_device_cdev_opened(device);
>
> IIUC, vfio_device_cdev_opened(device) will only return true after
> vfio_df_ioctl_bind_iommufd(). Where it does:
> 	device->cdev_opened = true;
> 
> Does this imply that devices not bound to an iommufd cannot be
> preserved?

Event if being bound to an iommufd is required, it seems wrong to check
it in can_preserve(), as the device can just be unbound from the iommufd
before preserve().

I think can_preserve() just needs to check if this is a VFIO cdev file,
i.e. vfio_device_from_file() returns non-NULL.

> 
> If so, I am confused about your cover letter step #15
> > 15. It makes usual bind iommufd and attach page table calls.
> 
> Does it mean after restoration, we have to bind iommufd again?

This is still being discussed. These are the two options currently:

 - When userspace retrieves the iommufd from LUO after kexec, the kernel
   will internally restore all VFIO cdevs and bind them to the iommufd
   in a single step.

 - Userspace will retrieve the iommufd and cdevs from LUO separately,
   and then bind each cdev to the iommufd like they were before kexec.