Re: [PATCH 9/9] vfio/pci: Add mmap() attributes to DMABUF feature

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 04:30:39PM +0100, Matt Evans wrote:
> Hi Alex, Leon,
> 
> On 27/04/2026 15:36, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 13:52:15 +0300
> > Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 03:31:53PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 06:17:52AM -0700, Matt Evans wrote:
> > > > > A new field is reserved in vfio_device_feature_dma_buf.flags to
> > > > > request CPU-facing memory type attributes for mmap()s of the buffer.
> > > > > Add a flag VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_DMA_BUF_ATTR_WC, which results in WC
> > > > > PTEs for the DMABUF's BAR region.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Matt Evans <mattev@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >   drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > > > >   drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_priv.h   |  1 +
> > > > >   include/uapi/linux/vfio.h          | 12 +++++++++---
> > > > >   3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > Nice and simple
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > @@ -1549,8 +1551,12 @@ struct vfio_region_dma_range {
> > > > >   struct vfio_device_feature_dma_buf {
> > > > >   	__u32	region_index;
> > > > >   	__u32	open_flags;
> > > > > -	__u32   flags;
> > > > > -	__u32   nr_ranges;
> > > > > +	__u32	flags;
> > > > > +	/* Flags sub-field reserved for attribute enum */
> > > > > +#define VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_DMA_BUF_ATTR_MASK		(0xfU << 28)
> > > > > +#define VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_DMA_BUF_ATTR_UC		(0 << 28)
> > > > > +#define VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_DMA_BUF_ATTR_WC		(1 << 28)
> > > > > +	__u32	nr_ranges;
> > > 
> > > Alex,
> > > 
> > > The TPH proposal extends the flags field in a similar way, but I suggested
> > > a different approach to conserve bits. At the moment, we spend three bits
> > > on a single feature, which feels wasteful.
> > > 
> > > What do you think?
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260409120415.GF86584@unreal/
> > 
> > I already proposed a very different interface for TPH that decouples
> > the dma-buf creation from setting the TPH values:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260423132016.4a25e074@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> > This is overall less intrusive than the TPH change proposed, but it
> > could still make sense to align this as an operation on the dma-buf,
> > that can be probed as a separate feature.  Thanks,
> 
> I'll add a VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_DMA_BUF_ATTRS in a v2 instead to get in line
> with the TPH work, no worries.
> 
> For the benefit of future hackers, how would you describe the criteria for
> adding flags to this existing field?  

One bit per-feature.

> What hypothetical feature characteristics would be appropriate?  (Maybe it's that these attrs & TPH
> add scalar fields in several bits rather than a simple boolean.) Two of us
> have independently added something that's turned out to be inapproriate so
> some guidance would be good.

Both of you intertwined the signaling bit with the actual data, and that is
what led me to prefer a different approach.

Thanks

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Matt