Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] vfio/pci: Add mmap() for DMABUFs

[David Laight]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 21:23:22 +0000
David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 2026-07-16 03:51 PM, Matt Evans wrote:
> > Hi David,
> > 
> > On 15/07/2026 19:12, David Matlack wrote:  
> > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 10:47 AM Matt Evans <matt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >   
> > >> This is based on v7.2-rc3.
> > >>
> > >> These commits are on GitHub for easier browsing, along with
> > >> "[RFC ONLY] selftests: vfio: Add standalone vfio_dmabuf_mmap_test":
> > >>
> > >> https://github.com/metamev/linux/compare/v7.2-rc3...dev/mev/vfio-dmabuf-mmap-v5  
> > > 
> > > It'd be great to have this test upstream. I'm happy to review it when
> > > you're ready. Looks like it just needs to be redone to use the VFIO
> > > selftests library and kselftests harness. AI could probably do the
> > > conversion pretty quick :)  
> > 
> > For sure, I'd intended to catch up with you on best approach here. :)
> > 
> > Aside from the organic structure of the test (the open-coded VFIO
> > device/group setup/init needs to go), the main issue is that it relies
> > on a hacked/out of tree QEMU "EDU++" device with a second larger BAR
> > (containing freely read-writable memory).  A subset of tests run with
> > the in-tree EDU device, but coverage is too low.
> > 
> > The desirable properties are:
> > 
> >  - Having a BAR that is pure memory (all locations present, writable
> > without disruptive side-effects) so that mapping aliases can be
> > constructed and detected.  This is good to test things like non-zero
> > vm_pgoffs and VA space presentation of physically-discontiguous DMABUFs.
> > 
> >  - BAR >> hugepage size so we can eyeball huge mappings work (or better,
> >  mechanically test for them).  At least 32MB would tick this box for 4K,
> > 16K page systems.
> > 
> >  - Something QEMU supports*, so one can run the test in a VM/TCG system.
> > 
> > There were some real device models in QEMU that could be used this way,
> > but needed a fair bit of setup;  I didn't want to rathole
> > vfio_dmabuf_mmap_test on including a ton of device-specific code for
> > some video card or similar.
> > 
> > I'll dig more for a simple target that provides these properties --
> > obviously it would be better to point this test at an off-the-shelf
> > device (including silicon!).  And, proposing EDU extensions to the QEMU
> > folks may be useful (there're uses for a better EDU in other contexts too).
> > 
> > Since this test uses MMIO for a specific [class of] function, my first
> > thought is it should be another VFIO driver-type test sibling of
> > vfio_pci_driver_test.  For example, we could extend the driver-type
> > tests' backend struct vfio_pci_driver_ops for functions capable of
> > providing a Big Memory BAR, like QEMU EDU++.  EDU can also memcpy, so
> > could also support vfio_pci_driver_test.
> > 
> > The spirit of the device backends hiding setup of a complex device is
> > handy, and it's plausible that several backends could provide this "big
> > memory BAR" service.  What do you think, any concerns with extending
> > vfio_pci_driver_ops like that?  
> 
> I wouldn't recommend leveraging the driver framework unless absolutely
> necessary. It makes the test harder to run.
> 
> The biggest issue I see with the proposed properties is being able to
> treat the BAR as memory. That obviously will depend on the device and
> may require device-specific setup. If we decide that treating the BAR as
> memory is truly required then using the driver framework is the way to
> go. But I'm hoping we can avoid that requirement.

Could you run a test where only a known part of the BAR can be treated
as memory?
A large BAR is likely to have some areas that can be accessed as memory.

	David

> 
> Instead, I think you can get pretty far by inspecting /proc/pid/pagemap
> to determine if the mmap() set things up correctly, without actually
> accessing the BAR. You can use /proc/pid/pagemap to look up the PFN and
> PAGEMAP_SCAN to detect huge pages.
> 
> With that requirement gone, then all you really need is a device with a
> large enough BAR. And even that it not a hard requirement. I'm sure
> there are plenty of test cases that could work with smaller BARs. The
> few tests that want to exercise huge mappings can inspect the device BAR
> sizes first, and if they're all too small, SKIP() the test.
> 
> If you structure the test this way, then it's easy for the test to be
> used. It can be run against any device for the basic functional
> coverage, and can be run against a device with a larger BAR for full
> coverage of huge mappings.
> 
> Does QEMU emulate any devices that have 32MB or larger BARs?
>