From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f172.google.com (mail-pl1-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 204734B8DC9 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:47:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769006862; cv=none; b=u3m7Ubg/ZmooWiUHedQaDqzTLlHTFoAE0lrTleXRjlAOh84HKOl8itFYx3eZOQPj6hAtoMq5yWnJSr0k8ws8esJUzRvGWSKfiD982iiRqMSqjv9teO6Catz+6M7Vpl7mLhHC363oYA1pR+szVxE01n/a3Zczk3dI1nCRTNhp9BI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769006862; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ACESqUkTA5xhzkocxzu1Q/cYXSAEkWy1ze88m+Pg+BQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=bVZpoc1S6h6VCdiPXHdNLlGYO3giQ90Lmc8wPoa5luBjlJSO3y2FAYH4MKaYTzry8CyP/8BKPggREQAEoCdU0576SfB75/0+E1zeq/RPZkqH3mdKxlgJaEGrccuuGX+F9ZfLnTAQ0YOpY7l6h6VevrkaNp9Shk8ZyQJx0LyEu70= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=yey+oVbG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="yey+oVbG" Received: by mail-pl1-f172.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2a35ae38bdfso75405ad.1 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2026 06:47:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1769006859; x=1769611659; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BMkS4BFW7iikoL2BjP1nG2XKvn880JyWpxnGNG3+/cM=; b=yey+oVbGOy2ziOs0M8k3ZrA9edvNtdE03FMxfDRDoifwSsfAb0EE7GHHjZJzUd+MTs SvuC5M7f5WQiWgNrDPx5uw7akEzXnBnVI1QQ4ZX9E3vOA/hbeIbtsGYl6Qgoxi/Cl9XS 7hMY4cLC/zEnCIzUJxRMRYWlz3mIzETDIb5dbFs4h8jX0x8w0lQ+jI+2voclHqR7wAAy G5Xt4MfWQqRvGEnV78wX1znSRFXl4x+CxsGqq+kv9BTI0UQVphGEFTYfydVB0EQfROaf UYc/cXx2GMnq/oBI//eTUlUP6Rvqysuwn7EOlCmIXYshtBrCQwyWWETrRCPautpjxFlO 1b+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1769006859; x=1769611659; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BMkS4BFW7iikoL2BjP1nG2XKvn880JyWpxnGNG3+/cM=; b=sIxSJA7XdSaijLmfwWdvT6va+yc81m/brha8Yt0Q0fRBFK2RJR2BtewlvDAjUTGL8k 0oc3Ceb3pq1kWEwJxawVv9+as5asFezVTop/O6ykU5j64Vc6fuMJyig2PjZ8ht24103i xWMcyzEaCvWYBIsPsVfQYIeZ07tsShmphiaWYWOpIdkRbog8yZvhpqgojkbfuhVk/yTx Arxi9n94MjsbBUz4ACtQkQMvabDX45o17ZxkHSp9meOE06s9zQLb5AW7a/9Vg7BTLxqp tx25clxbSpg+yfjn+hyGBV2MkDasHvyvzBE+SvoVBEA7CVwKUgZmwwztBoLpRb5pWtEm q3Ww== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVCvRzBJjIdB2NwC9/UtZAsV2jmI6AR+UTC4Wjh/ARLy4E7AAEcAKUFFKAnxNkvil449iv9EYB3ODAFU4k=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxi1URQf1TYUqcWsyEzccaDtOkBWM5JlzeFqisn9nLCNbcDRYnw y0rs69/6/+Mf5FapYLYuEVGY2VZVT0edYMzORefZKNFCcVf7+GCAQ+6e6ihvvvvNpA== X-Gm-Gg: AZuq6aLH65k/0itcTbr8LQXnqC3WKSY71FgWE0KTlpusoZbs+5tW9tveLIihDNnXW6h XWYiahajBN79ZTNXbrSMOtA109mLsd49E9DAiZCotCPFbH2/BwjQKBlxyPWi1dvsEiNL9RxDWNi J19cRfqYJqW8oSo4DSpTUFDR/BICt39hPA7XpMzemMwg34NuZ6chOT0hhYMYEnS6wAph/Q6Q1M5 +ZGcPfk3QmTKI+SvjDs4ffCSC9jp0Mn+vvv5LPtGHXKVHjJ82X87C/eGW5gIcg1LvLaV/2BCS0Y ociYoKnRtuXdYvHTzSBCvOZfSJhDETBlkiEUbCuoZU9tGDwNSQJ5m+ltF+pTS/Lmk/odvAsesjg UTfHZ8co3VzJZ6xYxsaFMc23gzpVBme5B343FphtYhBHxGSy5nmT0wqfnLWmq2Vq+WoxLAteN9G s0r8xdYHwILMoy5TmFmC2kyul/2L3BYYGSljuTEUFusG7TqMGB X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:dac8:b0:2a7:87c2:fcde with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2a7a245b58cmr2655545ad.15.1769006858836; Wed, 21 Jan 2026 06:47:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com (222.245.187.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.187.245.222]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-81fa108b21fsm15434806b3a.13.2026.01.21.06.47.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 21 Jan 2026 06:47:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:47:29 +0000 From: Pranjal Shrivastava To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , Sumit Semwal , Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= , Alex Deucher , David Airlie , Simona Vetter , Gerd Hoffmann , Dmitry Osipenko , Gurchetan Singh , Chia-I Wu , Maarten Lankhorst , Maxime Ripard , Thomas Zimmermann , Lucas De Marchi , Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hellstr=F6m?= , Rodrigo Vivi , Kevin Tian , Joerg Roedel , Will Deacon , Robin Murphy , Felix Kuehling , Alex Williamson , Ankit Agrawal , Vivek Kasireddy , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] vfio: Validate dma-buf revocation semantics Message-ID: References: <20260121-dmabuf-revoke-v4-0-d311cbc8633d@nvidia.com> <20260121-dmabuf-revoke-v4-8-d311cbc8633d@nvidia.com> <20260121134712.GZ961572@ziepe.ca> <20260121142528.GC13201@unreal> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260121142528.GC13201@unreal> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 04:25:28PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 02:22:31PM +0000, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 09:47:12AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 02:59:16PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky > > > > > > > > Use the new dma_buf_attach_revocable() helper to restrict attachments to > > > > importers that support mapping invalidation. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky > > > > --- > > > > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c | 3 +++ > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c > > > > index 5fceefc40e27..85056a5a3faf 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c > > > > @@ -31,6 +31,9 @@ static int vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, > > > > if (priv->revoked) > > > > return -ENODEV; > > > > > > > > + if (!dma_buf_attach_revocable(attachment)) > > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > + > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > > > We need to push an urgent -rc fix to implement a pin function here > > > that always fails. That was missed and it means things like rdma can > > > import vfio when the intention was to block that. It would be bad for > > > that uAPI mistake to reach a released kernel. > > > > > > It's tricky that NULL pin ops means "I support pin" :| > > > > > > > I've been wondering about this for a while now, I've been sitting on the > > following: > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c > > index a4d8f2ff94e4..962bce959366 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c > > @@ -1133,6 +1133,8 @@ int dma_buf_pin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach) > > > > if (dmabuf->ops->pin) > > ret = dmabuf->ops->pin(attach); > > + else > > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > return ret; > > } > > > > But didn't get a chance to dive in the history yet. I thought there's a > > good reason we didn't have it? Would it break exisitng dmabuf users? > > Probably every importer which called to dma_buf_pin() while connecting > to existing exporters as many in tree implementation don't have ->pin() > implemented. Fair point. I agree with Jason that we cannot leave this open for VFIO and we can have a pin op that always fails. But at the same time, I'd like to discuss if we should think about changing the dmabuf core, NULL op == success feels like relying on a bug I agree that it means the exporter has no mm, but I believe there should be some way for the importer to know that.. the importer can still decide to use the exported dmabuf while being aware. Thanks, Praan