[PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

[PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

[Leon Romanovsky]

Changelog:
v2:
 * Changed series to document the revoke semantics instead of
   implementing it.
v1: https://patch.msgid.link/20260111-dmabuf-revoke-v1-0-fb4bcc8c259b@nvidia.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This series documents a dma-buf “revoke” mechanism: to allow a dma-buf
exporter to explicitly invalidate (“kill”) a shared buffer after it has
been distributed to importers, so that further CPU and device access is
prevented and importers reliably observe failure.

The change in this series is to properly document and use existing core
“revoked” state on the dma-buf object and a corresponding exporter-triggered
revoke operation. Once a dma-buf is revoked, new access paths are blocked so
that attempts to DMA-map, vmap, or mmap the buffer fail in a consistent way.

Thanks

Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev
Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Cc: iommu@lists.linux.dev
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
To: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
To: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
To: David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
To: Simona Vetter <simona@ffwll.ch>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
To: Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org>
To: Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@gmail.com>
To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
To: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex@shazbot.org>

---
Leon Romanovsky (4):
      dma-buf: Rename .move_notify() callback to a clearer identifier
      dma-buf: Document revoke semantics
      iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics
      vfio: Add pinned interface to perform revoke semantics

 drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c                   |  6 +++---
 drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c |  4 ++--
 drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c      |  2 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c       |  6 +++---
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c             |  2 +-
 drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c       |  4 ++--
 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c             |  2 +-
 drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c               | 11 +++++++++--
 drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c          | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/dma-buf.h                     | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
 10 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 9ace4753a5202b02191d54e9fdf7f9e3d02b85eb
change-id: 20251221-dmabuf-revoke-b90ef16e4236

Best regards,
--  
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>

[PATCH v2 1/4] dma-buf: Rename .move_notify() callback to a clearer identifier

[Leon Romanovsky]

From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>

Rename the .move_notify() callback to .invalidate_mappings() to make its
purpose explicit and highlight that it is responsible for invalidating
existing mappings.

Suggested-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c                   | 6 +++---
 drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c | 4 ++--
 drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c      | 2 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c       | 6 +++---
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c             | 2 +-
 drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c       | 4 ++--
 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c             | 2 +-
 drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c               | 2 +-
 include/linux/dma-buf.h                     | 6 +++---
 9 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
index edaa9e4ee4ae..59cc647bf40e 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
@@ -948,7 +948,7 @@ dma_buf_dynamic_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct device *dev,
 	if (WARN_ON(!dmabuf || !dev))
 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 
-	if (WARN_ON(importer_ops && !importer_ops->move_notify))
+	if (WARN_ON(importer_ops && !importer_ops->invalidate_mappings))
 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 
 	attach = kzalloc(sizeof(*attach), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -1055,7 +1055,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_buf_pin, "DMA_BUF");
  *
  * This unpins a buffer pinned by dma_buf_pin() and allows the exporter to move
  * any mapping of @attach again and inform the importer through
- * &dma_buf_attach_ops.move_notify.
+ * &dma_buf_attach_ops.invalidate_mappings.
  */
 void dma_buf_unpin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
 {
@@ -1262,7 +1262,7 @@ void dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
 
 	list_for_each_entry(attach, &dmabuf->attachments, node)
 		if (attach->importer_ops)
-			attach->importer_ops->move_notify(attach);
+			attach->importer_ops->invalidate_mappings(attach);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_buf_move_notify, "DMA_BUF");
 
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
index e22cfa7c6d32..863454148b28 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
@@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ amdgpu_dma_buf_create_obj(struct drm_device *dev, struct dma_buf *dma_buf)
 }
 
 /**
- * amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify - &attach.move_notify implementation
+ * amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify - &attach.invalidate_mappings implementation
  *
  * @attach: the DMA-buf attachment
  *
@@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
 
 static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops amdgpu_dma_buf_attach_ops = {
 	.allow_peer2peer = true,
-	.move_notify = amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
+	.invalidate_mappings = amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
 };
 
 /**
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c
index ce49282198cb..19c78dd2ca77 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c
@@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ static void virtgpu_dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
 
 static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops virtgpu_dma_buf_attach_ops = {
 	.allow_peer2peer = true,
-	.move_notify = virtgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
+	.invalidate_mappings = virtgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
 };
 
 struct drm_gem_object *virtgpu_gem_prime_import(struct drm_device *dev,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
index 5df98de5ba3c..1f2cca5c2f81 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ static bool p2p_enabled(struct dma_buf_test_params *params)
 static bool is_dynamic(struct dma_buf_test_params *params)
 {
 	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY) && params->attach_ops &&
-		params->attach_ops->move_notify;
+		params->attach_ops->invalidate_mappings;
 }
 
 static void check_residency(struct kunit *test, struct xe_bo *exported,
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static void check_residency(struct kunit *test, struct xe_bo *exported,
 
 	/*
 	 * Evict exporter. Evicting the exported bo will
-	 * evict also the imported bo through the move_notify() functionality if
+	 * evict also the imported bo through the invalidate_mappings() functionality if
 	 * importer is on a different device. If they're on the same device,
 	 * the exporter and the importer should be the same bo.
 	 */
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static void xe_test_dmabuf_import_same_driver(struct xe_device *xe)
 
 static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops nop2p_attach_ops = {
 	.allow_peer2peer = false,
-	.move_notify = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
+	.invalidate_mappings = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
 };
 
 /*
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
index 7c74a31d4486..1b9cd043e517 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
@@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static void xe_dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
 
 static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops xe_dma_buf_attach_ops = {
 	.allow_peer2peer = true,
-	.move_notify = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
+	.invalidate_mappings = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
 };
 
 #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_XE_KUNIT_TEST)
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c
index 0ec2e4120cc9..d77a739cfe7a 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ ib_umem_dmabuf_get_with_dma_device(struct ib_device *device,
 	if (check_add_overflow(offset, (unsigned long)size, &end))
 		return ret;
 
-	if (unlikely(!ops || !ops->move_notify))
+	if (unlikely(!ops || !ops->invalidate_mappings))
 		return ret;
 
 	dmabuf = dma_buf_get(fd);
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ ib_umem_dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
 
 static struct dma_buf_attach_ops ib_umem_dmabuf_attach_pinned_ops = {
 	.allow_peer2peer = true,
-	.move_notify = ib_umem_dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify,
+	.invalidate_mappings = ib_umem_dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify,
 };
 
 struct ib_umem_dmabuf *
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
index 325fa04cbe8a..97099d3b1688 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
@@ -1620,7 +1620,7 @@ static void mlx5_ib_dmabuf_invalidate_cb(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
 
 static struct dma_buf_attach_ops mlx5_ib_dmabuf_attach_ops = {
 	.allow_peer2peer = 1,
-	.move_notify = mlx5_ib_dmabuf_invalidate_cb,
+	.invalidate_mappings = mlx5_ib_dmabuf_invalidate_cb,
 };
 
 static struct ib_mr *
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
index dbe51ecb9a20..76f900fa1687 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
@@ -1451,7 +1451,7 @@ static void iopt_revoke_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
 
 static struct dma_buf_attach_ops iopt_dmabuf_attach_revoke_ops = {
 	.allow_peer2peer = true,
-	.move_notify = iopt_revoke_notify,
+	.invalidate_mappings = iopt_revoke_notify,
 };
 
 /*
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-buf.h b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
index 0bc492090237..1b397635c793 100644
--- a/include/linux/dma-buf.h
+++ b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
@@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ struct dma_buf {
 	 *   through the device.
 	 *
 	 * - Dynamic importers should set fences for any access that they can't
-	 *   disable immediately from their &dma_buf_attach_ops.move_notify
+	 *   disable immediately from their &dma_buf_attach_ops.invalidate_mappings
 	 *   callback.
 	 *
 	 * IMPORTANT:
@@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ struct dma_buf_attach_ops {
 	bool allow_peer2peer;
 
 	/**
-	 * @move_notify: [optional] notification that the DMA-buf is moving
+	 * @invalidate_mappings: [optional] notification that the DMA-buf is moving
 	 *
 	 * If this callback is provided the framework can avoid pinning the
 	 * backing store while mappings exists.
@@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ struct dma_buf_attach_ops {
 	 * New mappings can be created after this callback returns, and will
 	 * point to the new location of the DMA-buf.
 	 */
-	void (*move_notify)(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach);
+	void (*invalidate_mappings)(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach);
 };
 
 /**

-- 
2.52.0

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dma-buf: Rename .move_notify() callback to a clearer identifier

[Christian König]

On 1/18/26 13:08, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> 
> Rename the .move_notify() callback to .invalidate_mappings() to make its
> purpose explicit and highlight that it is responsible for invalidating
> existing mappings.
> 
> Suggested-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>

Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>

> ---
>  drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c                   | 6 +++---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c | 4 ++--
>  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c      | 2 +-
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c       | 6 +++---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c             | 2 +-
>  drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c       | 4 ++--
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c             | 2 +-
>  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c               | 2 +-
>  include/linux/dma-buf.h                     | 6 +++---
>  9 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
> index edaa9e4ee4ae..59cc647bf40e 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
> @@ -948,7 +948,7 @@ dma_buf_dynamic_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct device *dev,
>  	if (WARN_ON(!dmabuf || !dev))
>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>  
> -	if (WARN_ON(importer_ops && !importer_ops->move_notify))
> +	if (WARN_ON(importer_ops && !importer_ops->invalidate_mappings))
>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>  
>  	attach = kzalloc(sizeof(*attach), GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -1055,7 +1055,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_buf_pin, "DMA_BUF");
>   *
>   * This unpins a buffer pinned by dma_buf_pin() and allows the exporter to move
>   * any mapping of @attach again and inform the importer through
> - * &dma_buf_attach_ops.move_notify.
> + * &dma_buf_attach_ops.invalidate_mappings.
>   */
>  void dma_buf_unpin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>  {
> @@ -1262,7 +1262,7 @@ void dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
>  
>  	list_for_each_entry(attach, &dmabuf->attachments, node)
>  		if (attach->importer_ops)
> -			attach->importer_ops->move_notify(attach);
> +			attach->importer_ops->invalidate_mappings(attach);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_buf_move_notify, "DMA_BUF");
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
> index e22cfa7c6d32..863454148b28 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
> @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ amdgpu_dma_buf_create_obj(struct drm_device *dev, struct dma_buf *dma_buf)
>  }
>  
>  /**
> - * amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify - &attach.move_notify implementation
> + * amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify - &attach.invalidate_mappings implementation
>   *
>   * @attach: the DMA-buf attachment
>   *
> @@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>  
>  static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops amdgpu_dma_buf_attach_ops = {
>  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
> -	.move_notify = amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
> +	.invalidate_mappings = amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
>  };
>  
>  /**
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c
> index ce49282198cb..19c78dd2ca77 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c
> @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ static void virtgpu_dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>  
>  static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops virtgpu_dma_buf_attach_ops = {
>  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
> -	.move_notify = virtgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
> +	.invalidate_mappings = virtgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
>  };
>  
>  struct drm_gem_object *virtgpu_gem_prime_import(struct drm_device *dev,
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
> index 5df98de5ba3c..1f2cca5c2f81 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ static bool p2p_enabled(struct dma_buf_test_params *params)
>  static bool is_dynamic(struct dma_buf_test_params *params)
>  {
>  	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY) && params->attach_ops &&
> -		params->attach_ops->move_notify;
> +		params->attach_ops->invalidate_mappings;
>  }
>  
>  static void check_residency(struct kunit *test, struct xe_bo *exported,
> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static void check_residency(struct kunit *test, struct xe_bo *exported,
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Evict exporter. Evicting the exported bo will
> -	 * evict also the imported bo through the move_notify() functionality if
> +	 * evict also the imported bo through the invalidate_mappings() functionality if
>  	 * importer is on a different device. If they're on the same device,
>  	 * the exporter and the importer should be the same bo.
>  	 */
> @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static void xe_test_dmabuf_import_same_driver(struct xe_device *xe)
>  
>  static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops nop2p_attach_ops = {
>  	.allow_peer2peer = false,
> -	.move_notify = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
> +	.invalidate_mappings = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
>  };
>  
>  /*
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
> index 7c74a31d4486..1b9cd043e517 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
> @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static void xe_dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>  
>  static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops xe_dma_buf_attach_ops = {
>  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
> -	.move_notify = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
> +	.invalidate_mappings = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
>  };
>  
>  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_XE_KUNIT_TEST)
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c
> index 0ec2e4120cc9..d77a739cfe7a 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c
> @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ ib_umem_dmabuf_get_with_dma_device(struct ib_device *device,
>  	if (check_add_overflow(offset, (unsigned long)size, &end))
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	if (unlikely(!ops || !ops->move_notify))
> +	if (unlikely(!ops || !ops->invalidate_mappings))
>  		return ret;
>  
>  	dmabuf = dma_buf_get(fd);
> @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ ib_umem_dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>  
>  static struct dma_buf_attach_ops ib_umem_dmabuf_attach_pinned_ops = {
>  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
> -	.move_notify = ib_umem_dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify,
> +	.invalidate_mappings = ib_umem_dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify,
>  };
>  
>  struct ib_umem_dmabuf *
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> index 325fa04cbe8a..97099d3b1688 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> @@ -1620,7 +1620,7 @@ static void mlx5_ib_dmabuf_invalidate_cb(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>  
>  static struct dma_buf_attach_ops mlx5_ib_dmabuf_attach_ops = {
>  	.allow_peer2peer = 1,
> -	.move_notify = mlx5_ib_dmabuf_invalidate_cb,
> +	.invalidate_mappings = mlx5_ib_dmabuf_invalidate_cb,
>  };
>  
>  static struct ib_mr *
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> index dbe51ecb9a20..76f900fa1687 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> @@ -1451,7 +1451,7 @@ static void iopt_revoke_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>  
>  static struct dma_buf_attach_ops iopt_dmabuf_attach_revoke_ops = {
>  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
> -	.move_notify = iopt_revoke_notify,
> +	.invalidate_mappings = iopt_revoke_notify,
>  };
>  
>  /*
> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-buf.h b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> index 0bc492090237..1b397635c793 100644
> --- a/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> @@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ struct dma_buf {
>  	 *   through the device.
>  	 *
>  	 * - Dynamic importers should set fences for any access that they can't
> -	 *   disable immediately from their &dma_buf_attach_ops.move_notify
> +	 *   disable immediately from their &dma_buf_attach_ops.invalidate_mappings
>  	 *   callback.
>  	 *
>  	 * IMPORTANT:
> @@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ struct dma_buf_attach_ops {
>  	bool allow_peer2peer;
>  
>  	/**
> -	 * @move_notify: [optional] notification that the DMA-buf is moving
> +	 * @invalidate_mappings: [optional] notification that the DMA-buf is moving
>  	 *
>  	 * If this callback is provided the framework can avoid pinning the
>  	 * backing store while mappings exists.
> @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ struct dma_buf_attach_ops {
>  	 * New mappings can be created after this callback returns, and will
>  	 * point to the new location of the DMA-buf.
>  	 */
> -	void (*move_notify)(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach);
> +	void (*invalidate_mappings)(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach);
>  };
>  
>  /**
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dma-buf: Rename .move_notify() callback to a clearer identifier

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 11:22:27AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> On 1/18/26 13:08, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > Rename the .move_notify() callback to .invalidate_mappings() to make its
> > purpose explicit and highlight that it is responsible for invalidating
> > existing mappings.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>

Thanks,

BTW, I didn't update the various xxx_move_notify() functions to use
xxx_invalidate_mappings() names. Should those be converted as well?

> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c                   | 6 +++---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c | 4 ++--
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c      | 2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c       | 6 +++---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c             | 2 +-
> >  drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c       | 4 ++--
> >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c             | 2 +-
> >  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c               | 2 +-
> >  include/linux/dma-buf.h                     | 6 +++---
> >  9 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
> > index edaa9e4ee4ae..59cc647bf40e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
> > @@ -948,7 +948,7 @@ dma_buf_dynamic_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct device *dev,
> >  	if (WARN_ON(!dmabuf || !dev))
> >  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >  
> > -	if (WARN_ON(importer_ops && !importer_ops->move_notify))
> > +	if (WARN_ON(importer_ops && !importer_ops->invalidate_mappings))
> >  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >  
> >  	attach = kzalloc(sizeof(*attach), GFP_KERNEL);
> > @@ -1055,7 +1055,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_buf_pin, "DMA_BUF");
> >   *
> >   * This unpins a buffer pinned by dma_buf_pin() and allows the exporter to move
> >   * any mapping of @attach again and inform the importer through
> > - * &dma_buf_attach_ops.move_notify.
> > + * &dma_buf_attach_ops.invalidate_mappings.
> >   */
> >  void dma_buf_unpin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
> >  {
> > @@ -1262,7 +1262,7 @@ void dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
> >  
> >  	list_for_each_entry(attach, &dmabuf->attachments, node)
> >  		if (attach->importer_ops)
> > -			attach->importer_ops->move_notify(attach);
> > +			attach->importer_ops->invalidate_mappings(attach);
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_buf_move_notify, "DMA_BUF");
> >  
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
> > index e22cfa7c6d32..863454148b28 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
> > @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ amdgpu_dma_buf_create_obj(struct drm_device *dev, struct dma_buf *dma_buf)
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > - * amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify - &attach.move_notify implementation
> > + * amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify - &attach.invalidate_mappings implementation
> >   *
> >   * @attach: the DMA-buf attachment
> >   *
> > @@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
> >  
> >  static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops amdgpu_dma_buf_attach_ops = {
> >  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
> > -	.move_notify = amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
> > +	.invalidate_mappings = amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
> >  };
> >  
> >  /**
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c
> > index ce49282198cb..19c78dd2ca77 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c
> > @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ static void virtgpu_dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
> >  
> >  static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops virtgpu_dma_buf_attach_ops = {
> >  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
> > -	.move_notify = virtgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
> > +	.invalidate_mappings = virtgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
> >  };
> >  
> >  struct drm_gem_object *virtgpu_gem_prime_import(struct drm_device *dev,
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
> > index 5df98de5ba3c..1f2cca5c2f81 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
> > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ static bool p2p_enabled(struct dma_buf_test_params *params)
> >  static bool is_dynamic(struct dma_buf_test_params *params)
> >  {
> >  	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY) && params->attach_ops &&
> > -		params->attach_ops->move_notify;
> > +		params->attach_ops->invalidate_mappings;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void check_residency(struct kunit *test, struct xe_bo *exported,
> > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static void check_residency(struct kunit *test, struct xe_bo *exported,
> >  
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Evict exporter. Evicting the exported bo will
> > -	 * evict also the imported bo through the move_notify() functionality if
> > +	 * evict also the imported bo through the invalidate_mappings() functionality if
> >  	 * importer is on a different device. If they're on the same device,
> >  	 * the exporter and the importer should be the same bo.
> >  	 */
> > @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static void xe_test_dmabuf_import_same_driver(struct xe_device *xe)
> >  
> >  static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops nop2p_attach_ops = {
> >  	.allow_peer2peer = false,
> > -	.move_notify = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
> > +	.invalidate_mappings = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
> >  };
> >  
> >  /*
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
> > index 7c74a31d4486..1b9cd043e517 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
> > @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static void xe_dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
> >  
> >  static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops xe_dma_buf_attach_ops = {
> >  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
> > -	.move_notify = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
> > +	.invalidate_mappings = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
> >  };
> >  
> >  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_XE_KUNIT_TEST)
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c
> > index 0ec2e4120cc9..d77a739cfe7a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c
> > @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ ib_umem_dmabuf_get_with_dma_device(struct ib_device *device,
> >  	if (check_add_overflow(offset, (unsigned long)size, &end))
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> > -	if (unlikely(!ops || !ops->move_notify))
> > +	if (unlikely(!ops || !ops->invalidate_mappings))
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> >  	dmabuf = dma_buf_get(fd);
> > @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ ib_umem_dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
> >  
> >  static struct dma_buf_attach_ops ib_umem_dmabuf_attach_pinned_ops = {
> >  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
> > -	.move_notify = ib_umem_dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify,
> > +	.invalidate_mappings = ib_umem_dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify,
> >  };
> >  
> >  struct ib_umem_dmabuf *
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > index 325fa04cbe8a..97099d3b1688 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > @@ -1620,7 +1620,7 @@ static void mlx5_ib_dmabuf_invalidate_cb(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
> >  
> >  static struct dma_buf_attach_ops mlx5_ib_dmabuf_attach_ops = {
> >  	.allow_peer2peer = 1,
> > -	.move_notify = mlx5_ib_dmabuf_invalidate_cb,
> > +	.invalidate_mappings = mlx5_ib_dmabuf_invalidate_cb,
> >  };
> >  
> >  static struct ib_mr *
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > index dbe51ecb9a20..76f900fa1687 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > @@ -1451,7 +1451,7 @@ static void iopt_revoke_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
> >  
> >  static struct dma_buf_attach_ops iopt_dmabuf_attach_revoke_ops = {
> >  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
> > -	.move_notify = iopt_revoke_notify,
> > +	.invalidate_mappings = iopt_revoke_notify,
> >  };
> >  
> >  /*
> > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-buf.h b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> > index 0bc492090237..1b397635c793 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> > @@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ struct dma_buf {
> >  	 *   through the device.
> >  	 *
> >  	 * - Dynamic importers should set fences for any access that they can't
> > -	 *   disable immediately from their &dma_buf_attach_ops.move_notify
> > +	 *   disable immediately from their &dma_buf_attach_ops.invalidate_mappings
> >  	 *   callback.
> >  	 *
> >  	 * IMPORTANT:
> > @@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ struct dma_buf_attach_ops {
> >  	bool allow_peer2peer;
> >  
> >  	/**
> > -	 * @move_notify: [optional] notification that the DMA-buf is moving
> > +	 * @invalidate_mappings: [optional] notification that the DMA-buf is moving
> >  	 *
> >  	 * If this callback is provided the framework can avoid pinning the
> >  	 * backing store while mappings exists.
> > @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ struct dma_buf_attach_ops {
> >  	 * New mappings can be created after this callback returns, and will
> >  	 * point to the new location of the DMA-buf.
> >  	 */
> > -	void (*move_notify)(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach);
> > +	void (*invalidate_mappings)(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach);
> >  };
> >  
> >  /**
> > 
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dma-buf: Rename .move_notify() callback to a clearer identifier

[Christian König]

On 1/19/26 12:38, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 11:22:27AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
>> On 1/18/26 13:08, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> Rename the .move_notify() callback to .invalidate_mappings() to make its
>>> purpose explicit and highlight that it is responsible for invalidating
>>> existing mappings.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> BTW, I didn't update the various xxx_move_notify() functions to use
> xxx_invalidate_mappings() names. Should those be converted as well?

No, those importer specific functions can keep their name.

More important is the config option. Haven't thought about that one.

Probably best if we either rename or completely remove that one, it was to keep the MOVE_NOTIFY functionality separate for initial testing but we have clearly supassed this long time ago.

Regards,
Christian.

> 
>>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c                   | 6 +++---
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c | 4 ++--
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c      | 2 +-
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c       | 6 +++---
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c             | 2 +-
>>>  drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c       | 4 ++--
>>>  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c             | 2 +-
>>>  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c               | 2 +-
>>>  include/linux/dma-buf.h                     | 6 +++---
>>>  9 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
>>> index edaa9e4ee4ae..59cc647bf40e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
>>> @@ -948,7 +948,7 @@ dma_buf_dynamic_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct device *dev,
>>>  	if (WARN_ON(!dmabuf || !dev))
>>>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>>  
>>> -	if (WARN_ON(importer_ops && !importer_ops->move_notify))
>>> +	if (WARN_ON(importer_ops && !importer_ops->invalidate_mappings))
>>>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>>  
>>>  	attach = kzalloc(sizeof(*attach), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> @@ -1055,7 +1055,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_buf_pin, "DMA_BUF");
>>>   *
>>>   * This unpins a buffer pinned by dma_buf_pin() and allows the exporter to move
>>>   * any mapping of @attach again and inform the importer through
>>> - * &dma_buf_attach_ops.move_notify.
>>> + * &dma_buf_attach_ops.invalidate_mappings.
>>>   */
>>>  void dma_buf_unpin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>>>  {
>>> @@ -1262,7 +1262,7 @@ void dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
>>>  
>>>  	list_for_each_entry(attach, &dmabuf->attachments, node)
>>>  		if (attach->importer_ops)
>>> -			attach->importer_ops->move_notify(attach);
>>> +			attach->importer_ops->invalidate_mappings(attach);
>>>  }
>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_buf_move_notify, "DMA_BUF");
>>>  
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
>>> index e22cfa7c6d32..863454148b28 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
>>> @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ amdgpu_dma_buf_create_obj(struct drm_device *dev, struct dma_buf *dma_buf)
>>>  }
>>>  
>>>  /**
>>> - * amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify - &attach.move_notify implementation
>>> + * amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify - &attach.invalidate_mappings implementation
>>>   *
>>>   * @attach: the DMA-buf attachment
>>>   *
>>> @@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>>>  
>>>  static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops amdgpu_dma_buf_attach_ops = {
>>>  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
>>> -	.move_notify = amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
>>> +	.invalidate_mappings = amdgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  /**
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c
>>> index ce49282198cb..19c78dd2ca77 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c
>>> @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ static void virtgpu_dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>>>  
>>>  static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops virtgpu_dma_buf_attach_ops = {
>>>  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
>>> -	.move_notify = virtgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
>>> +	.invalidate_mappings = virtgpu_dma_buf_move_notify
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  struct drm_gem_object *virtgpu_gem_prime_import(struct drm_device *dev,
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
>>> index 5df98de5ba3c..1f2cca5c2f81 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
>>> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ static bool p2p_enabled(struct dma_buf_test_params *params)
>>>  static bool is_dynamic(struct dma_buf_test_params *params)
>>>  {
>>>  	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY) && params->attach_ops &&
>>> -		params->attach_ops->move_notify;
>>> +		params->attach_ops->invalidate_mappings;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>>  static void check_residency(struct kunit *test, struct xe_bo *exported,
>>> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static void check_residency(struct kunit *test, struct xe_bo *exported,
>>>  
>>>  	/*
>>>  	 * Evict exporter. Evicting the exported bo will
>>> -	 * evict also the imported bo through the move_notify() functionality if
>>> +	 * evict also the imported bo through the invalidate_mappings() functionality if
>>>  	 * importer is on a different device. If they're on the same device,
>>>  	 * the exporter and the importer should be the same bo.
>>>  	 */
>>> @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static void xe_test_dmabuf_import_same_driver(struct xe_device *xe)
>>>  
>>>  static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops nop2p_attach_ops = {
>>>  	.allow_peer2peer = false,
>>> -	.move_notify = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
>>> +	.invalidate_mappings = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  /*
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
>>> index 7c74a31d4486..1b9cd043e517 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
>>> @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static void xe_dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>>>  
>>>  static const struct dma_buf_attach_ops xe_dma_buf_attach_ops = {
>>>  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
>>> -	.move_notify = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
>>> +	.invalidate_mappings = xe_dma_buf_move_notify
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_XE_KUNIT_TEST)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c
>>> index 0ec2e4120cc9..d77a739cfe7a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c
>>> @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ ib_umem_dmabuf_get_with_dma_device(struct ib_device *device,
>>>  	if (check_add_overflow(offset, (unsigned long)size, &end))
>>>  		return ret;
>>>  
>>> -	if (unlikely(!ops || !ops->move_notify))
>>> +	if (unlikely(!ops || !ops->invalidate_mappings))
>>>  		return ret;
>>>  
>>>  	dmabuf = dma_buf_get(fd);
>>> @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ ib_umem_dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>>>  
>>>  static struct dma_buf_attach_ops ib_umem_dmabuf_attach_pinned_ops = {
>>>  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
>>> -	.move_notify = ib_umem_dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify,
>>> +	.invalidate_mappings = ib_umem_dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify,
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  struct ib_umem_dmabuf *
>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>>> index 325fa04cbe8a..97099d3b1688 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>>> @@ -1620,7 +1620,7 @@ static void mlx5_ib_dmabuf_invalidate_cb(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>>>  
>>>  static struct dma_buf_attach_ops mlx5_ib_dmabuf_attach_ops = {
>>>  	.allow_peer2peer = 1,
>>> -	.move_notify = mlx5_ib_dmabuf_invalidate_cb,
>>> +	.invalidate_mappings = mlx5_ib_dmabuf_invalidate_cb,
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  static struct ib_mr *
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
>>> index dbe51ecb9a20..76f900fa1687 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
>>> @@ -1451,7 +1451,7 @@ static void iopt_revoke_notify(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>>>  
>>>  static struct dma_buf_attach_ops iopt_dmabuf_attach_revoke_ops = {
>>>  	.allow_peer2peer = true,
>>> -	.move_notify = iopt_revoke_notify,
>>> +	.invalidate_mappings = iopt_revoke_notify,
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  /*
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-buf.h b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
>>> index 0bc492090237..1b397635c793 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/dma-buf.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
>>> @@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ struct dma_buf {
>>>  	 *   through the device.
>>>  	 *
>>>  	 * - Dynamic importers should set fences for any access that they can't
>>> -	 *   disable immediately from their &dma_buf_attach_ops.move_notify
>>> +	 *   disable immediately from their &dma_buf_attach_ops.invalidate_mappings
>>>  	 *   callback.
>>>  	 *
>>>  	 * IMPORTANT:
>>> @@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ struct dma_buf_attach_ops {
>>>  	bool allow_peer2peer;
>>>  
>>>  	/**
>>> -	 * @move_notify: [optional] notification that the DMA-buf is moving
>>> +	 * @invalidate_mappings: [optional] notification that the DMA-buf is moving
>>>  	 *
>>>  	 * If this callback is provided the framework can avoid pinning the
>>>  	 * backing store while mappings exists.
>>> @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ struct dma_buf_attach_ops {
>>>  	 * New mappings can be created after this callback returns, and will
>>>  	 * point to the new location of the DMA-buf.
>>>  	 */
>>> -	void (*move_notify)(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach);
>>> +	void (*invalidate_mappings)(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach);
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  /**
>>>
>>

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dma-buf: Rename .move_notify() callback to a clearer identifier

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 01:00:18PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> On 1/19/26 12:38, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 11:22:27AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> >> On 1/18/26 13:08, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >>> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> >>>
> >>> Rename the .move_notify() callback to .invalidate_mappings() to make its
> >>> purpose explicit and highlight that it is responsible for invalidating
> >>> existing mappings.
> >>>
> >>> Suggested-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > BTW, I didn't update the various xxx_move_notify() functions to use
> > xxx_invalidate_mappings() names. Should those be converted as well?
> 
> No, those importer specific functions can keep their name.
> 
> More important is the config option. Haven't thought about that one.
> 
> Probably best if we either rename or completely remove that one, it was to keep the MOVE_NOTIFY functionality separate for initial testing but we have clearly supassed this long time ago.

I removed it and will send in v3.

commit 05ad416fc0b8c9b07714f9b23dbb038c991b819d
Author: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon Jan 19 07:24:26 2026 -0500

    dma-buf: Always build with DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY
    
    DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY was introduced in 2018 and has been marked as
    experimental and disabled by default ever since. Six years later,
    all new importers implement this callback.
    
    It is therefore reasonable to drop CONFIG_DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY and
    always build DMABUF with support for it enabled.

    Suggested-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
    Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/Kconfig b/drivers/dma-buf/Kconfig
index b46eb8a552d7..84d5e9b24e20 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/Kconfig
@@ -40,18 +40,6 @@ config UDMABUF
          A driver to let userspace turn memfd regions into dma-bufs.
          Qemu can use this to create host dmabufs for guest framebuffers.
 
-config DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY
-       bool "Move notify between drivers (EXPERIMENTAL)"
-       default n
-       depends on DMA_SHARED_BUFFER
-       help
-         Don't pin buffers if the dynamic DMA-buf interface is available on
-         both the exporter as well as the importer. This fixes a security
-         problem where userspace is able to pin unrestricted amounts of memory
-         through DMA-buf.
-         This is marked experimental because we don't yet have a consistent
-         execution context and memory management between drivers.
-
 config DMABUF_DEBUG
        bool "DMA-BUF debug checks"
        depends on DMA_SHARED_BUFFER
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
index 59cc647bf40e..cd3b60ce4863 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
@@ -837,18 +837,10 @@ static void mangle_sg_table(struct sg_table *sg_table)
 
 }
 
-static inline bool
-dma_buf_attachment_is_dynamic(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
-{
-       return !!attach->importer_ops;
-}
-
 static bool
 dma_buf_pin_on_map(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
 {
-       return attach->dmabuf->ops->pin &&
-               (!dma_buf_attachment_is_dynamic(attach) ||
-                !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY));
+       return attach->dmabuf->ops->pin && !attach->importer_ops;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -1124,7 +1116,7 @@ struct sg_table *dma_buf_map_attachment(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach,
        /*
         * Importers with static attachments don't wait for fences.
         */
-       if (!dma_buf_attachment_is_dynamic(attach)) {
+       if (!attach->importer_ops) {
                ret = dma_resv_wait_timeout(attach->dmabuf->resv,
                                            DMA_RESV_USAGE_KERNEL, true,
                                            MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
index 863454148b28..349215549e8f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c
@@ -145,13 +145,9 @@ static int amdgpu_dma_buf_pin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
         * notifiers are disabled, only allow pinning in VRAM when move
         * notiers are enabled.
         */
-       if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY)) {
-               domains &= ~AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM;
-       } else {
-               list_for_each_entry(attach, &dmabuf->attachments, node)
-                       if (!attach->peer2peer)
-                               domains &= ~AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM;
-       }
+       list_for_each_entry(attach, &dmabuf->attachments, node)
+               if (!attach->peer2peer)
+                       domains &= ~AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM;
 
        if (domains & AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM)
                bo->flags |= AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_CPU_ACCESS_REQUIRED;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/Kconfig
index 16e12c9913f9..a5d7467c2f34 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/Kconfig
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ config HSA_AMD_SVM
 
 config HSA_AMD_P2P
        bool "HSA kernel driver support for peer-to-peer for AMD GPU devices"
-       depends on HSA_AMD && PCI_P2PDMA && DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY
+       depends on HSA_AMD && PCI_P2PDMA
        help
          Enable peer-to-peer (P2P) communication between AMD GPUs over
          the PCIe bus. This can improve performance of multi-GPU compute
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
index 1f2cca5c2f81..c107687ef3c0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c
@@ -22,8 +22,7 @@ static bool p2p_enabled(struct dma_buf_test_params *params)
 
 static bool is_dynamic(struct dma_buf_test_params *params)
 {
-       return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY) && params->attach_ops &&
-               params->attach_ops->invalidate_mappings;
+       return params->attach_ops && params->attach_ops->invalidate_mappings;
 }
 
 static void check_residency(struct kunit *test, struct xe_bo *exported,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
index 1b9cd043e517..ea370cd373e9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c
@@ -56,14 +56,10 @@ static int xe_dma_buf_pin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
        bool allow_vram = true;
        int ret;
 
-       if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY)) {
-               allow_vram = false;
-       } else {
-               list_for_each_entry(attach, &dmabuf->attachments, node) {
-                       if (!attach->peer2peer) {
-                               allow_vram = false;
-                               break;
-                       }
+       list_for_each_entry(attach, &dmabuf->attachments, node) {
+               if (!attach->peer2peer) {
+                       allow_vram = false;
+                       break;
                }
        }
 

[PATCH v2 2/4] dma-buf: Document revoke semantics

[Leon Romanovsky]

From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>

Document a DMA-buf revoke mechanism that allows an exporter to explicitly
invalidate ("kill") a shared buffer after it has been handed out to
importers. Once revoked, all further CPU and device access is blocked, and
importers consistently observe failure.

This requires both importers and exporters to honor the revoke contract.

For importers, this means implementing .invalidate_mappings() and calling
dma_buf_pin() after the DMA‑buf is attached to verify the exporter’s support
for revocation.

For exporters, this means implementing the .pin() callback, which checks
the DMA‑buf attachment for a valid revoke implementation.

Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
---
 include/linux/dma-buf.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/dma-buf.h b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
index 1b397635c793..e0bc0b7119f5 100644
--- a/include/linux/dma-buf.h
+++ b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
@@ -579,6 +579,25 @@ static inline bool dma_buf_is_dynamic(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
 	return !!dmabuf->ops->pin;
 }
 
+/**
+ * dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke - check if a DMA-buf importer implements
+ * revoke semantics.
+ * @attach: the DMA-buf attachment to check
+ *
+ * Returns true if DMA-buf importer honors revoke semantics, which is
+ * negotiated with the exporter, by making sure that importer implements
+ * .invalidate_mappings() callback and calls to dma_buf_pin() after
+ * DMA-buf attach.
+ */
+static inline bool
+dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
+{
+	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY) &&
+	       dma_buf_is_dynamic(attach->dmabuf) &&
+	       (attach->importer_ops &&
+		attach->importer_ops->invalidate_mappings);
+}
+
 struct dma_buf_attachment *dma_buf_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
 					  struct device *dev);
 struct dma_buf_attachment *

-- 
2.52.0

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dma-buf: Document revoke semantics

[Thomas Hellström]

On Sun, 2026-01-18 at 14:08 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> 
> Document a DMA-buf revoke mechanism that allows an exporter to
> explicitly
> invalidate ("kill") a shared buffer after it has been handed out to
> importers. Once revoked, all further CPU and device access is
> blocked, and
> importers consistently observe failure.

See previous comment WRT this.

> 
> This requires both importers and exporters to honor the revoke
> contract.
> 
> For importers, this means implementing .invalidate_mappings() and
> calling
> dma_buf_pin() after the DMA‑buf is attached to verify the exporter’s
> support
> for revocation.

Why would the importer want to verify the exporter's support for
revocation? If the exporter doesn't support it, the only consequence
would be that invalidate_mappings() would never be called, and that
dma_buf_pin() is a NOP. Besides, dma_buf_pin() would not return an
error if the exporter doesn't implement the pin() callback?

Or perhaps I missed a prereq patch?

Thanks,
Thomas

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dma-buf: Document revoke semantics

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 03:29:02PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> On Sun, 2026-01-18 at 14:08 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > Document a DMA-buf revoke mechanism that allows an exporter to
> > explicitly
> > invalidate ("kill") a shared buffer after it has been handed out to
> > importers. Once revoked, all further CPU and device access is
> > blocked, and
> > importers consistently observe failure.
> 
> See previous comment WRT this.
> 
> > 
> > This requires both importers and exporters to honor the revoke
> > contract.
> > 
> > For importers, this means implementing .invalidate_mappings() and
> > calling
> > dma_buf_pin() after the DMA‑buf is attached to verify the exporter’s
> > support
> > for revocation.
> 
> Why would the importer want to verify the exporter's support for
> revocation? If the exporter doesn't support it, the only consequence
> would be that invalidate_mappings() would never be called, and that
> dma_buf_pin() is a NOP. Besides, dma_buf_pin() would not return an
> error if the exporter doesn't implement the pin() callback?

The idea is that both should do revoke and there is a need to indicate
that this exporter has some expectations from the importers. One of them
is that invalidate_mappings exists.

Thanks

> 
> Or perhaps I missed a prereq patch?
> 
> Thanks,
> Thomas
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dma-buf: Document revoke semantics

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 03:29:02PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> Why would the importer want to verify the exporter's support for
> revocation? If the exporter doesn't support it, the only consequence
> would be that invalidate_mappings() would never be called, and that
> dma_buf_pin() is a NOP. Besides, dma_buf_pin() would not return an
> error if the exporter doesn't implement the pin() callback?

I think the comment and commit message should be clarified that 
dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke() is called by the exporter.

The purpose is for the exporter that wants to call move_notify() on a
pinned DMABUF to determine if the importer is going to support it.

Jason

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dma-buf: Document revoke semantics

[John Hubbard]

On 1/18/26 4:08 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
...
> +/**
> + * dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke - check if a DMA-buf importer implements
> + * revoke semantics.
> + * @attach: the DMA-buf attachment to check
> + *
> + * Returns true if DMA-buf importer honors revoke semantics, which is
> + * negotiated with the exporter, by making sure that importer implements
> + * .invalidate_mappings() callback and calls to dma_buf_pin() after
> + * DMA-buf attach.
> + */
> +static inline bool
> +dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)

Maybe a slight rename, to dma_buf_attachment_is_revocable()?


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dma-buf: Document revoke semantics

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 01:40:11PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 1/18/26 4:08 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> ...
> > +/**
> > + * dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke - check if a DMA-buf importer implements
> > + * revoke semantics.
> > + * @attach: the DMA-buf attachment to check
> > + *
> > + * Returns true if DMA-buf importer honors revoke semantics, which is
> > + * negotiated with the exporter, by making sure that importer implements
> > + * .invalidate_mappings() callback and calls to dma_buf_pin() after
> > + * DMA-buf attach.
> > + */
> > +static inline bool
> > +dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
> 
> Maybe a slight rename, to dma_buf_attachment_is_revocable()?

I can do that. The issue is that even "dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke"
is already too long. :)

Thanks

> 
> 
> thanks,
> -- 
> John Hubbard
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dma-buf: Document revoke semantics

[John Hubbard]

On 1/18/26 11:25 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 01:40:11PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 1/18/26 4:08 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
>> ...
>>> +/**
>>> + * dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke - check if a DMA-buf importer implements
>>> + * revoke semantics.
>>> + * @attach: the DMA-buf attachment to check
>>> + *
>>> + * Returns true if DMA-buf importer honors revoke semantics, which is
>>> + * negotiated with the exporter, by making sure that importer implements
>>> + * .invalidate_mappings() callback and calls to dma_buf_pin() after
>>> + * DMA-buf attach.
>>> + */
>>> +static inline bool
>>> +dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>>
>> Maybe a slight rename, to dma_buf_attachment_is_revocable()?
> 
> I can do that. The issue is that even "dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke"
> is already too long. :)
> 

If you're really pressed for space for some reason, maybe
dma_buf_attach_revocable() ?

Just trying to hang on to the "revocable" part of the name, as
I think it's an improvement.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dma-buf: Document revoke semantics

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 11:32:20PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 1/18/26 11:25 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 01:40:11PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > On 1/18/26 4:08 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > ...
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke - check if a DMA-buf importer implements
> > > > + * revoke semantics.
> > > > + * @attach: the DMA-buf attachment to check
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Returns true if DMA-buf importer honors revoke semantics, which is
> > > > + * negotiated with the exporter, by making sure that importer implements
> > > > + * .invalidate_mappings() callback and calls to dma_buf_pin() after
> > > > + * DMA-buf attach.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static inline bool
> > > > +dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
> > > 
> > > Maybe a slight rename, to dma_buf_attachment_is_revocable()?
> > 
> > I can do that. The issue is that even "dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke"
> > is already too long. :)
> > 
> 
> If you're really pressed for space for some reason,

Mainly aesthetics.

> maybe dma_buf_attach_revocable() ?
> 
> Just trying to hang on to the "revocable" part of the name, as
> I think it's an improvement.

Sure

> 
> thanks,
> -- 
> John Hubbard
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dma-buf: Document revoke semantics

[Christian König]

On 1/18/26 13:08, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> 
> Document a DMA-buf revoke mechanism that allows an exporter to explicitly
> invalidate ("kill") a shared buffer after it has been handed out to
> importers. Once revoked, all further CPU and device access is blocked, and
> importers consistently observe failure.
> 
> This requires both importers and exporters to honor the revoke contract.
> 
> For importers, this means implementing .invalidate_mappings() and calling
> dma_buf_pin() after the DMA‑buf is attached to verify the exporter’s support
> for revocation.
> 
> For exporters, this means implementing the .pin() callback, which checks
> the DMA‑buf attachment for a valid revoke implementation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/dma-buf.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-buf.h b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> index 1b397635c793..e0bc0b7119f5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> @@ -579,6 +579,25 @@ static inline bool dma_buf_is_dynamic(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
>  	return !!dmabuf->ops->pin;
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke - check if a DMA-buf importer implements
> + * revoke semantics.
> + * @attach: the DMA-buf attachment to check
> + *

> + * Returns true if DMA-buf importer honors revoke semantics, which is
> + * negotiated with the exporter, by making sure that importer implements
> + * .invalidate_mappings() callback and calls to dma_buf_pin() after
> + * DMA-buf attach.

That wording is to unclear. Something like:

Returns true if the DMA-buf importer can handle invalidating it's mappings at any time, even after pinning a buffer.

> + */
> +static inline bool
> +dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)

That's clearly not a good name. But that is already discussed in another thread.

> +{
> +	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY) &&

Oh, we should have renamed that as well. Or maybe it is time to completely remove that config option.

> +	       dma_buf_is_dynamic(attach->dmabuf) &&

This is checking exporter and not importer capabilities, please drop.

> +	       (attach->importer_ops &&
> +		attach->importer_ops->invalidate_mappings);

So when invalidate_mappings is implemented we need to be able to call it at any time. Yeah that sounds like a valid approach to me.

But we need to remove the RDNA callback with the warning then to properly signal that. And also please document that in the callback kerneldoc.

Regards,
Christian.

> +}
> +
>  struct dma_buf_attachment *dma_buf_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
>  					  struct device *dev);
>  struct dma_buf_attachment *
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dma-buf: Document revoke semantics

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 11:56:16AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> On 1/18/26 13:08, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > Document a DMA-buf revoke mechanism that allows an exporter to explicitly
> > invalidate ("kill") a shared buffer after it has been handed out to
> > importers. Once revoked, all further CPU and device access is blocked, and
> > importers consistently observe failure.
> > 
> > This requires both importers and exporters to honor the revoke contract.
> > 
> > For importers, this means implementing .invalidate_mappings() and calling
> > dma_buf_pin() after the DMA‑buf is attached to verify the exporter’s support
> > for revocation.
> > 
> > For exporters, this means implementing the .pin() callback, which checks
> > the DMA‑buf attachment for a valid revoke implementation.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/dma-buf.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)

<...>

> > + * Returns true if DMA-buf importer honors revoke semantics, which is
> > + * negotiated with the exporter, by making sure that importer implements
> > + * .invalidate_mappings() callback and calls to dma_buf_pin() after
> > + * DMA-buf attach.
> 
> That wording is to unclear. Something like:
> 
> Returns true if the DMA-buf importer can handle invalidating it's mappings at any time, even after pinning a buffer.

<...>

> 
> That's clearly not a good name. But that is already discussed in another thread.

<...>

> Oh, we should have renamed that as well. Or maybe it is time to completely remove that config option.

<...>

> This is checking exporter and not importer capabilities, please drop.

<...>

> So when invalidate_mappings is implemented we need to be able to call it at any time. Yeah that sounds like a valid approach to me.
> 
> But we need to remove the RDNA callback with the warning then to properly signal that. And also please document that in the callback kerneldoc.

Will do, thanks

> 
> Regards,
> Christian.
> 
> > +}
> > +
> >  struct dma_buf_attachment *dma_buf_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
> >  					  struct device *dev);
> >  struct dma_buf_attachment *
> > 
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dma-buf: Document revoke semantics

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 02:08:46PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> 
> Document a DMA-buf revoke mechanism that allows an exporter to explicitly
> invalidate ("kill") a shared buffer after it has been handed out to
> importers. Once revoked, all further CPU and device access is blocked, and
> importers consistently observe failure.
> 
> This requires both importers and exporters to honor the revoke contract.
> 
> For importers, this means implementing .invalidate_mappings() and calling
> dma_buf_pin() after the DMA‑buf is attached to verify the exporter’s support
> for revocation.
> 
> For exporters, this means implementing the .pin() callback, which checks
> the DMA‑buf attachment for a valid revoke implementation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/dma-buf.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-buf.h b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> index 1b397635c793..e0bc0b7119f5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> @@ -579,6 +579,25 @@ static inline bool dma_buf_is_dynamic(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
>  	return !!dmabuf->ops->pin;
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke - check if a DMA-buf importer implements
> + * revoke semantics.
> + * @attach: the DMA-buf attachment to check
> + *
> + * Returns true if DMA-buf importer honors revoke semantics, which is
> + * negotiated with the exporter, by making sure that importer implements
> + * .invalidate_mappings() callback and calls to dma_buf_pin() after
> + * DMA-buf attach.
> + */

I think this clarification should also have comment to
dma_buf_move_notify(). Maybe like this:

@@ -1324,7 +1324,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_buf_sgt_unmap_attachment_unlocked, "DMA_BUF");
  * @dmabuf:    [in]    buffer which is moving
  *
  * Informs all attachments that they need to destroy and recreate all their
- * mappings.
+ * mappings. If the attachment is dynamic then the dynamic importer is expected
+ * to invalidate any caches it has of the mapping result and perform a new
+ * mapping request before allowing HW to do any further DMA.
+ *
+ * If the attachment is pinned then this informs the pinned importer that
+ * the underlying mapping is no longer available. Pinned importers may take
+ * this is as a permanent revocation so exporters should not trigger it
+ * lightly.
+ *
+ * For legacy pinned importers that cannot support invalidation this is a NOP.
+ * Drivers can call dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke() to determine if the
+ * importer supports this.
  */

Also it would be nice to document what Christian pointed out regarding
fences after move_notify.

> +static inline bool
> +dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
> +{
> +	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY) &&
> +	       dma_buf_is_dynamic(attach->dmabuf) &&
> +	       (attach->importer_ops &&
> +		attach->importer_ops->invalidate_mappings);
> +}

And I don't think we should use a NULL invalidate_mappings function
pointer to signal this.

It sounds like the direction is to require importers to support
move_notify, so we should not make it easy to just drop a NULL in the
ops struct to get out of the desired configuration.

I suggest defining a function
"dma_buf_unsupported_invalidate_mappings" and use
EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES so only RDMA can use it. Then check for that
along with NULL importer_ops to cover the two cases where it is not
allowed.

The only reason RDMA has to use dma_buf_dynamic_attach() is to set the
allow_p2p=true ..

Jason

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dma-buf: Document revoke semantics

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 12:44:21PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 02:08:46PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > Document a DMA-buf revoke mechanism that allows an exporter to explicitly
> > invalidate ("kill") a shared buffer after it has been handed out to
> > importers. Once revoked, all further CPU and device access is blocked, and
> > importers consistently observe failure.
> > 
> > This requires both importers and exporters to honor the revoke contract.
> > 
> > For importers, this means implementing .invalidate_mappings() and calling
> > dma_buf_pin() after the DMA‑buf is attached to verify the exporter’s support
> > for revocation.
> > 
> > For exporters, this means implementing the .pin() callback, which checks
> > the DMA‑buf attachment for a valid revoke implementation.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/dma-buf.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-buf.h b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> > index 1b397635c793..e0bc0b7119f5 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
> > @@ -579,6 +579,25 @@ static inline bool dma_buf_is_dynamic(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
> >  	return !!dmabuf->ops->pin;
> >  }
> >  
> > +/**
> > + * dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke - check if a DMA-buf importer implements
> > + * revoke semantics.
> > + * @attach: the DMA-buf attachment to check
> > + *
> > + * Returns true if DMA-buf importer honors revoke semantics, which is
> > + * negotiated with the exporter, by making sure that importer implements
> > + * .invalidate_mappings() callback and calls to dma_buf_pin() after
> > + * DMA-buf attach.
> > + */
> 
> I think this clarification should also have comment to
> dma_buf_move_notify(). Maybe like this:
> 
> @@ -1324,7 +1324,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_buf_sgt_unmap_attachment_unlocked, "DMA_BUF");
>   * @dmabuf:    [in]    buffer which is moving
>   *
>   * Informs all attachments that they need to destroy and recreate all their
> - * mappings.
> + * mappings. If the attachment is dynamic then the dynamic importer is expected
> + * to invalidate any caches it has of the mapping result and perform a new
> + * mapping request before allowing HW to do any further DMA.
> + *
> + * If the attachment is pinned then this informs the pinned importer that
> + * the underlying mapping is no longer available. Pinned importers may take
> + * this is as a permanent revocation so exporters should not trigger it
> + * lightly.
> + *
> + * For legacy pinned importers that cannot support invalidation this is a NOP.
> + * Drivers can call dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke() to determine if the
> + * importer supports this.
>   */
> 
> Also it would be nice to document what Christian pointed out regarding
> fences after move_notify.

I added this comment too:
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
index 6dd70f7b992d..478127dc63e9 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
@@ -1253,6 +1253,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_buf_unmap_attachment_unlocked, "DMA_BUF");
  * For legacy pinned importers that cannot support invalidation this is a NOP.
  * Drivers can call dma_buf_attach_revocable() to determine if the importer
  * supports this.
+ *
+ * NOTE: The invalidation triggers asynchronous HW operation and the callers
+ * need to wait for this operation to complete by calling
+ * to dma_resv_wait_timeout().
  */
 void dma_buf_move_notify(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
 {

> 
> > +static inline bool
> > +dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
> > +{
> > +	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMABUF_MOVE_NOTIFY) &&
> > +	       dma_buf_is_dynamic(attach->dmabuf) &&
> > +	       (attach->importer_ops &&
> > +		attach->importer_ops->invalidate_mappings);
> > +}
> 
> And I don't think we should use a NULL invalidate_mappings function
> pointer to signal this.
> 
> It sounds like the direction is to require importers to support
> move_notify, so we should not make it easy to just drop a NULL in the
> ops struct to get out of the desired configuration.
> 
> I suggest defining a function
> "dma_buf_unsupported_invalidate_mappings" and use
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES so only RDMA can use it. Then check for that
> along with NULL importer_ops to cover the two cases where it is not
> allowed.
> 
> The only reason RDMA has to use dma_buf_dynamic_attach() is to set the
> allow_p2p=true ..

Will do.

> 
> Jason

[PATCH v2 3/4] iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics

[Leon Romanovsky]

From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>

IOMMUFD does not support page fault handling, and after a call to
.invalidate_mappings() all mappings become invalid. Ensure that
the IOMMUFD DMABUF importer is bound to a revoke‑aware DMABUF exporter
(for example, VFIO).

Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c | 9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
index 76f900fa1687..a5eb2bc4ef48 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
@@ -1501,16 +1501,22 @@ static int iopt_map_dmabuf(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx, struct iopt_pages *pages,
 		mutex_unlock(&pages->mutex);
 	}
 
-	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
+	rc = dma_buf_pin(attach);
 	if (rc)
 		goto err_detach;
 
+	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
+	if (rc)
+		goto err_unpin;
+
 	dma_resv_unlock(dmabuf->resv);
 
 	/* On success iopt_release_pages() will detach and put the dmabuf. */
 	pages->dmabuf.attach = attach;
 	return 0;
 
+err_unpin:
+	dma_buf_unpin(attach);
 err_detach:
 	dma_resv_unlock(dmabuf->resv);
 	dma_buf_detach(dmabuf, attach);
@@ -1656,6 +1662,7 @@ void iopt_release_pages(struct kref *kref)
 	if (iopt_is_dmabuf(pages) && pages->dmabuf.attach) {
 		struct dma_buf *dmabuf = pages->dmabuf.attach->dmabuf;
 
+		dma_buf_unpin(pages->dmabuf.attach);
 		dma_buf_detach(dmabuf, pages->dmabuf.attach);
 		dma_buf_put(dmabuf);
 		WARN_ON(!list_empty(&pages->dmabuf.tracker));

-- 
2.52.0

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 02:08:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> 
> IOMMUFD does not support page fault handling, and after a call to
> .invalidate_mappings() all mappings become invalid. Ensure that
> the IOMMUFD DMABUF importer is bound to a revoke‑aware DMABUF exporter
> (for example, VFIO).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c | 9 ++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> index 76f900fa1687..a5eb2bc4ef48 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> @@ -1501,16 +1501,22 @@ static int iopt_map_dmabuf(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx, struct iopt_pages *pages,
>  		mutex_unlock(&pages->mutex);
>  	}
>  
> -	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
> +	rc = dma_buf_pin(attach);
>  	if (rc)
>  		goto err_detach;
>  
> +	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
> +	if (rc)
> +		goto err_unpin;
> +
>  	dma_resv_unlock(dmabuf->resv);
>  
>  	/* On success iopt_release_pages() will detach and put the dmabuf. */
>  	pages->dmabuf.attach = attach;
>  	return 0;

Don't we need an explicit unpin after unmapping?

Jason

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 12:59:51PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 02:08:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > IOMMUFD does not support page fault handling, and after a call to
> > .invalidate_mappings() all mappings become invalid. Ensure that
> > the IOMMUFD DMABUF importer is bound to a revoke‑aware DMABUF exporter
> > (for example, VFIO).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c | 9 ++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > index 76f900fa1687..a5eb2bc4ef48 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > @@ -1501,16 +1501,22 @@ static int iopt_map_dmabuf(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx, struct iopt_pages *pages,
> >  		mutex_unlock(&pages->mutex);
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
> > +	rc = dma_buf_pin(attach);
> >  	if (rc)
> >  		goto err_detach;
> >  
> > +	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
> > +	if (rc)
> > +		goto err_unpin;
> > +
> >  	dma_resv_unlock(dmabuf->resv);
> >  
> >  	/* On success iopt_release_pages() will detach and put the dmabuf. */
> >  	pages->dmabuf.attach = attach;
> >  	return 0;
> 
> Don't we need an explicit unpin after unmapping?

Yes, but this patch is going to be dropped in v3 because of this
suggestion.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/a397ff1e-615f-4873-98a9-940f9c16f85c@amd.com

Thanks


> 
> Jason

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 08:23:00PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 12:59:51PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 02:08:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > 
> > > IOMMUFD does not support page fault handling, and after a call to
> > > .invalidate_mappings() all mappings become invalid. Ensure that
> > > the IOMMUFD DMABUF importer is bound to a revoke‑aware DMABUF exporter
> > > (for example, VFIO).
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > > index 76f900fa1687..a5eb2bc4ef48 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > > @@ -1501,16 +1501,22 @@ static int iopt_map_dmabuf(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx, struct iopt_pages *pages,
> > >  		mutex_unlock(&pages->mutex);
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
> > > +	rc = dma_buf_pin(attach);
> > >  	if (rc)
> > >  		goto err_detach;
> > >  
> > > +	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
> > > +	if (rc)
> > > +		goto err_unpin;
> > > +
> > >  	dma_resv_unlock(dmabuf->resv);
> > >  
> > >  	/* On success iopt_release_pages() will detach and put the dmabuf. */
> > >  	pages->dmabuf.attach = attach;
> > >  	return 0;
> > 
> > Don't we need an explicit unpin after unmapping?
> 
> Yes, but this patch is going to be dropped in v3 because of this
> suggestion.
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/a397ff1e-615f-4873-98a9-940f9c16f85c@amd.com

That's not right, that suggestion is about changing VFIO. iommufd must
still act as a pinning importer!

Jason

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 03:54:44PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 08:23:00PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 12:59:51PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 02:08:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > > 
> > > > IOMMUFD does not support page fault handling, and after a call to
> > > > .invalidate_mappings() all mappings become invalid. Ensure that
> > > > the IOMMUFD DMABUF importer is bound to a revoke‑aware DMABUF exporter
> > > > (for example, VFIO).
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > > > index 76f900fa1687..a5eb2bc4ef48 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > > > @@ -1501,16 +1501,22 @@ static int iopt_map_dmabuf(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx, struct iopt_pages *pages,
> > > >  		mutex_unlock(&pages->mutex);
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > -	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
> > > > +	rc = dma_buf_pin(attach);
> > > >  	if (rc)
> > > >  		goto err_detach;
> > > >  
> > > > +	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
> > > > +	if (rc)
> > > > +		goto err_unpin;
> > > > +
> > > >  	dma_resv_unlock(dmabuf->resv);
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* On success iopt_release_pages() will detach and put the dmabuf. */
> > > >  	pages->dmabuf.attach = attach;
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > 
> > > Don't we need an explicit unpin after unmapping?
> > 
> > Yes, but this patch is going to be dropped in v3 because of this
> > suggestion.
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/a397ff1e-615f-4873-98a9-940f9c16f85c@amd.com
> 
> That's not right, that suggestion is about changing VFIO. iommufd must
> still act as a pinning importer!

There is no change in iommufd, as it invokes dma_buf_dynamic_attach()
with a valid &iopt_dmabuf_attach_revoke_ops. The check determining whether
iommufd can perform a revoke is handled there.

Thanks

> 
> Jason
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 03:10:46PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 03:54:44PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 08:23:00PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 12:59:51PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 02:08:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > IOMMUFD does not support page fault handling, and after a call to
> > > > > .invalidate_mappings() all mappings become invalid. Ensure that
> > > > > the IOMMUFD DMABUF importer is bound to a revoke‑aware DMABUF exporter
> > > > > (for example, VFIO).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > > > > index 76f900fa1687..a5eb2bc4ef48 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > > > > @@ -1501,16 +1501,22 @@ static int iopt_map_dmabuf(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx, struct iopt_pages *pages,
> > > > >  		mutex_unlock(&pages->mutex);
> > > > >  	}
> > > > >  
> > > > > -	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
> > > > > +	rc = dma_buf_pin(attach);
> > > > >  	if (rc)
> > > > >  		goto err_detach;
> > > > >  
> > > > > +	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
> > > > > +	if (rc)
> > > > > +		goto err_unpin;
> > > > > +
> > > > >  	dma_resv_unlock(dmabuf->resv);
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	/* On success iopt_release_pages() will detach and put the dmabuf. */
> > > > >  	pages->dmabuf.attach = attach;
> > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > 
> > > > Don't we need an explicit unpin after unmapping?
> > > 
> > > Yes, but this patch is going to be dropped in v3 because of this
> > > suggestion.
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/a397ff1e-615f-4873-98a9-940f9c16f85c@amd.com
> > 
> > That's not right, that suggestion is about changing VFIO. iommufd must
> > still act as a pinning importer!
> 
> There is no change in iommufd, as it invokes dma_buf_dynamic_attach()
> with a valid &iopt_dmabuf_attach_revoke_ops. The check determining whether
> iommufd can perform a revoke is handled there.

iommufd is a pining importer. I did not add a call to pin because it
only worked with VFIO that would not support it. Now that this series
fixes it the pin must be added. Don't drop this patch.

All the explanations we just gave say this special revoke mode only
activates if the buffer is pinned by the importer, so iommufd must pin
it. Otherwise it says it is working in the move mode with faulting
that it cannot support.

Jason

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 09:15:30AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 03:10:46PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 03:54:44PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 08:23:00PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 12:59:51PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 02:08:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > IOMMUFD does not support page fault handling, and after a call to
> > > > > > .invalidate_mappings() all mappings become invalid. Ensure that
> > > > > > the IOMMUFD DMABUF importer is bound to a revoke‑aware DMABUF exporter
> > > > > > (for example, VFIO).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > > > > > index 76f900fa1687..a5eb2bc4ef48 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c
> > > > > > @@ -1501,16 +1501,22 @@ static int iopt_map_dmabuf(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx, struct iopt_pages *pages,
> > > > > >  		mutex_unlock(&pages->mutex);
> > > > > >  	}
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > -	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
> > > > > > +	rc = dma_buf_pin(attach);
> > > > > >  	if (rc)
> > > > > >  		goto err_detach;
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > +	rc = sym_vfio_pci_dma_buf_iommufd_map(attach, &pages->dmabuf.phys);
> > > > > > +	if (rc)
> > > > > > +		goto err_unpin;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >  	dma_resv_unlock(dmabuf->resv);
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  	/* On success iopt_release_pages() will detach and put the dmabuf. */
> > > > > >  	pages->dmabuf.attach = attach;
> > > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > > 
> > > > > Don't we need an explicit unpin after unmapping?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, but this patch is going to be dropped in v3 because of this
> > > > suggestion.
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/a397ff1e-615f-4873-98a9-940f9c16f85c@amd.com
> > > 
> > > That's not right, that suggestion is about changing VFIO. iommufd must
> > > still act as a pinning importer!
> > 
> > There is no change in iommufd, as it invokes dma_buf_dynamic_attach()
> > with a valid &iopt_dmabuf_attach_revoke_ops. The check determining whether
> > iommufd can perform a revoke is handled there.
> 
> iommufd is a pining importer. I did not add a call to pin because it
> only worked with VFIO that would not support it. Now that this series
> fixes it the pin must be added. Don't drop this patch.

No problem, let's keep it.

Thanks

[PATCH v2 4/4] vfio: Add pinned interface to perform revoke semantics

[Leon Romanovsky]

From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>

DMABUF ->pin() interface is called when the DMABUF importer perform
its DMA mapping, so let's use this opportunity to check if DMABUF
exporter revoked its buffer or not.

Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
index d4d0f7d08c53..af9c315ddf71 100644
--- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
+++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
@@ -20,6 +20,20 @@ struct vfio_pci_dma_buf {
 	u8 revoked : 1;
 };
 
+static int vfio_pci_dma_buf_pin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
+{
+	struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *priv = attachment->dmabuf->priv;
+
+	dma_resv_assert_held(priv->dmabuf->resv);
+
+	return dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke(attachment) ? 0 : -EOPNOTSUPP;
+}
+
+static void vfio_pci_dma_buf_unpin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
+{
+	/* Do nothing */
+}
+
 static int vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
 				   struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
 {
@@ -76,6 +90,8 @@ static void vfio_pci_dma_buf_release(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
 }
 
 static const struct dma_buf_ops vfio_pci_dmabuf_ops = {
+	.pin = vfio_pci_dma_buf_pin,
+	.unpin = vfio_pci_dma_buf_unpin,
 	.attach = vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach,
 	.map_dma_buf = vfio_pci_dma_buf_map,
 	.unmap_dma_buf = vfio_pci_dma_buf_unmap,

-- 
2.52.0

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] vfio: Add pinned interface to perform revoke semantics

[Christian König]

On 1/18/26 13:08, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> 
> DMABUF ->pin() interface is called when the DMABUF importer perform
> its DMA mapping, so let's use this opportunity to check if DMABUF
> exporter revoked its buffer or not.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
> index d4d0f7d08c53..af9c315ddf71 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,20 @@ struct vfio_pci_dma_buf {
>  	u8 revoked : 1;
>  };
>  
> +static int vfio_pci_dma_buf_pin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
> +{
> +	struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *priv = attachment->dmabuf->priv;
> +
> +	dma_resv_assert_held(priv->dmabuf->resv);
> +
> +	return dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke(attachment) ? 0 : -EOPNOTSUPP;

It's probably better to do that check in vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach.

And BTW the function vfio_pci_dma_buf_move() seems to be broken:

void vfio_pci_dma_buf_move(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, bool revoked)
{
        struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *priv;
        struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *tmp;

        lockdep_assert_held_write(&vdev->memory_lock);

        list_for_each_entry_safe(priv, tmp, &vdev->dmabufs, dmabufs_elm) {
                if (!get_file_active(&priv->dmabuf->file))
                        continue;

                if (priv->revoked != revoked) {
                        dma_resv_lock(priv->dmabuf->resv, NULL);
                        priv->revoked = revoked;
                        dma_buf_move_notify(priv->dmabuf);

A dma_buf_move_notify() just triggers asynchronous invalidation of the mapping!

You need to use dma_resv_wait() to wait for that to finish.

                        dma_resv_unlock(priv->dmabuf->resv);
                }
                fput(priv->dmabuf->file);
        }
}

Regards,
Christian.


> +}
> +
> +static void vfio_pci_dma_buf_unpin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
> +{
> +	/* Do nothing */
> +}
> +
>  static int vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
>  				   struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
>  {
> @@ -76,6 +90,8 @@ static void vfio_pci_dma_buf_release(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
>  }
>  
>  static const struct dma_buf_ops vfio_pci_dmabuf_ops = {
> +	.pin = vfio_pci_dma_buf_pin,
> +	.unpin = vfio_pci_dma_buf_unpin,
>  	.attach = vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach,
>  	.map_dma_buf = vfio_pci_dma_buf_map,
>  	.unmap_dma_buf = vfio_pci_dma_buf_unmap,
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] vfio: Add pinned interface to perform revoke semantics

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 01:12:45PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> On 1/18/26 13:08, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > DMABUF ->pin() interface is called when the DMABUF importer perform
> > its DMA mapping, so let's use this opportunity to check if DMABUF
> > exporter revoked its buffer or not.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
> > index d4d0f7d08c53..af9c315ddf71 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
> > @@ -20,6 +20,20 @@ struct vfio_pci_dma_buf {
> >  	u8 revoked : 1;
> >  };
> >  
> > +static int vfio_pci_dma_buf_pin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
> > +{
> > +	struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *priv = attachment->dmabuf->priv;
> > +
> > +	dma_resv_assert_held(priv->dmabuf->resv);
> > +
> > +	return dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke(attachment) ? 0 : -EOPNOTSUPP;
> 
> It's probably better to do that check in vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach.

I assume you are proposing to add this check in both
vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach() and vfio_pci_dma_buf_pin(). Otherwise,
importers that lack .invalidate_mapping() will invoke dma_buf_pin()
and will not fail.

> 
> And BTW the function vfio_pci_dma_buf_move() seems to be broken:
> 
> void vfio_pci_dma_buf_move(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, bool revoked)
> {
>         struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *priv;
>         struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *tmp;
> 
>         lockdep_assert_held_write(&vdev->memory_lock);
> 
>         list_for_each_entry_safe(priv, tmp, &vdev->dmabufs, dmabufs_elm) {
>                 if (!get_file_active(&priv->dmabuf->file))
>                         continue;
> 
>                 if (priv->revoked != revoked) {
>                         dma_resv_lock(priv->dmabuf->resv, NULL);
>                         priv->revoked = revoked;
>                         dma_buf_move_notify(priv->dmabuf);
> 
> A dma_buf_move_notify() just triggers asynchronous invalidation of the mapping!
> 
> You need to use dma_resv_wait() to wait for that to finish.

We (VFIO and IOMMUFD) followed the same pattern used in  
amdgpu_bo_move_notify(), which also does not wait.

I'll add wait here.

Thanks

> 
>                         dma_resv_unlock(priv->dmabuf->resv);
>                 }
>                 fput(priv->dmabuf->file);
>         }
> }
> 
> Regards,
> Christian.
> 
> 
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void vfio_pci_dma_buf_unpin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
> > +{
> > +	/* Do nothing */
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
> >  				   struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
> >  {
> > @@ -76,6 +90,8 @@ static void vfio_pci_dma_buf_release(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
> >  }
> >  
> >  static const struct dma_buf_ops vfio_pci_dmabuf_ops = {
> > +	.pin = vfio_pci_dma_buf_pin,
> > +	.unpin = vfio_pci_dma_buf_unpin,
> >  	.attach = vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach,
> >  	.map_dma_buf = vfio_pci_dma_buf_map,
> >  	.unmap_dma_buf = vfio_pci_dma_buf_unmap,
> > 
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] vfio: Add pinned interface to perform revoke semantics

[Christian König]

On 1/19/26 14:02, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 01:12:45PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
>> On 1/18/26 13:08, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> DMABUF ->pin() interface is called when the DMABUF importer perform
>>> its DMA mapping, so let's use this opportunity to check if DMABUF
>>> exporter revoked its buffer or not.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
>>> index d4d0f7d08c53..af9c315ddf71 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
>>> @@ -20,6 +20,20 @@ struct vfio_pci_dma_buf {
>>>  	u8 revoked : 1;
>>>  };
>>>  
>>> +static int vfio_pci_dma_buf_pin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *priv = attachment->dmabuf->priv;
>>> +
>>> +	dma_resv_assert_held(priv->dmabuf->resv);
>>> +
>>> +	return dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke(attachment) ? 0 : -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>
>> It's probably better to do that check in vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach.
> 
> I assume you are proposing to add this check in both
> vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach() and vfio_pci_dma_buf_pin(). Otherwise,
> importers that lack .invalidate_mapping() will invoke dma_buf_pin()
> and will not fail.

vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach() alone should be sufficient. It is always called, even for importers lacking invalidate_mapping().

Regards,
Christian.

> 
>>
>> And BTW the function vfio_pci_dma_buf_move() seems to be broken:
>>
>> void vfio_pci_dma_buf_move(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, bool revoked)
>> {
>>         struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *priv;
>>         struct vfio_pci_dma_buf *tmp;
>>
>>         lockdep_assert_held_write(&vdev->memory_lock);
>>
>>         list_for_each_entry_safe(priv, tmp, &vdev->dmabufs, dmabufs_elm) {
>>                 if (!get_file_active(&priv->dmabuf->file))
>>                         continue;
>>
>>                 if (priv->revoked != revoked) {
>>                         dma_resv_lock(priv->dmabuf->resv, NULL);
>>                         priv->revoked = revoked;
>>                         dma_buf_move_notify(priv->dmabuf);
>>
>> A dma_buf_move_notify() just triggers asynchronous invalidation of the mapping!
>>
>> You need to use dma_resv_wait() to wait for that to finish.
> 
> We (VFIO and IOMMUFD) followed the same pattern used in  
> amdgpu_bo_move_notify(), which also does not wait.
> 
> I'll add wait here.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>>
>>                         dma_resv_unlock(priv->dmabuf->resv);
>>                 }
>>                 fput(priv->dmabuf->file);
>>         }
>> }
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christian.
>>
>>
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void vfio_pci_dma_buf_unpin(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
>>> +{
>>> +	/* Do nothing */
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  static int vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
>>>  				   struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
>>>  {
>>> @@ -76,6 +90,8 @@ static void vfio_pci_dma_buf_release(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
>>>  }
>>>  
>>>  static const struct dma_buf_ops vfio_pci_dmabuf_ops = {
>>> +	.pin = vfio_pci_dma_buf_pin,
>>> +	.unpin = vfio_pci_dma_buf_unpin,
>>>  	.attach = vfio_pci_dma_buf_attach,
>>>  	.map_dma_buf = vfio_pci_dma_buf_map,
>>>  	.unmap_dma_buf = vfio_pci_dma_buf_unmap,
>>>
>>

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] vfio: Add pinned interface to perform revoke semantics

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 03:02:44PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:

> We (VFIO and IOMMUFD) followed the same pattern used in  
> amdgpu_bo_move_notify(), which also does not wait.

You have to be really careful copying anything from the GPU drivers as
they have these waits hidden and batched in other parts of their
operations..

Jason

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

[Thomas Hellström]

Hi, Leon,

On Sun, 2026-01-18 at 14:08 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> Changelog:
> v2:
>  * Changed series to document the revoke semantics instead of
>    implementing it.
> v1:
> https://patch.msgid.link/20260111-dmabuf-revoke-v1-0-fb4bcc8c259b@nvidia.com
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> This series documents a dma-buf “revoke” mechanism: to allow a dma-
> buf
> exporter to explicitly invalidate (“kill”) a shared buffer after it
> has
> been distributed to importers, so that further CPU and device access
> is
> prevented and importers reliably observe failure.
> 
> The change in this series is to properly document and use existing
> core
> “revoked” state on the dma-buf object and a corresponding exporter-
> triggered
> revoke operation. Once a dma-buf is revoked, new access paths are
> blocked so
> that attempts to DMA-map, vmap, or mmap the buffer fail in a
> consistent way.

This sounds like it does not match how many GPU-drivers use the
move_notify() callback.

move_notify() would typically invalidate any device maps and any
asynchronous part of that invalidation would be complete when the dma-
buf's reservation object becomes idle WRT DMA_RESV_USAGE_BOOKKEEP
fences.

However, the importer could, after obtaining the resv lock, obtain a
new map using dma_buf_map_attachment(), and I'd assume the CPU maps
work in the same way, I.E. move_notify() does not *permanently* revoke
importer access.

/Thomas


> 
> Thanks
> 
> Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev
> Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: iommu@lists.linux.dev
> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
> To: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
> To: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> To: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> To: David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
> To: Simona Vetter <simona@ffwll.ch>
> To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> To: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
> To: Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org>
> To: Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@gmail.com>
> To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
> To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
> To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> To: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> To: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
> To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
> To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> To: Alex Williamson <alex@shazbot.org>
> 
> ---
> Leon Romanovsky (4):
>       dma-buf: Rename .move_notify() callback to a clearer identifier
>       dma-buf: Document revoke semantics
>       iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics
>       vfio: Add pinned interface to perform revoke semantics
> 
>  drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c                   |  6 +++---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c |  4 ++--
>  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c      |  2 +-
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c       |  6 +++---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c             |  2 +-
>  drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c       |  4 ++--
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c             |  2 +-
>  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c               | 11 +++++++++--
>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c          | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/dma-buf.h                     | 25
> ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  10 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> ---
> base-commit: 9ace4753a5202b02191d54e9fdf7f9e3d02b85eb
> change-id: 20251221-dmabuf-revoke-b90ef16e4236
> 
> Best regards,
> --  
> Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 03:16:25PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> Hi, Leon,
> 
> On Sun, 2026-01-18 at 14:08 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > Changelog:
> > v2:
> >  * Changed series to document the revoke semantics instead of
> >    implementing it.
> > v1:
> > https://patch.msgid.link/20260111-dmabuf-revoke-v1-0-fb4bcc8c259b@nvidia.com
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > This series documents a dma-buf “revoke” mechanism: to allow a dma-
> > buf
> > exporter to explicitly invalidate (“kill”) a shared buffer after it
> > has
> > been distributed to importers, so that further CPU and device access
> > is
> > prevented and importers reliably observe failure.
> > 
> > The change in this series is to properly document and use existing
> > core
> > “revoked” state on the dma-buf object and a corresponding exporter-
> > triggered
> > revoke operation. Once a dma-buf is revoked, new access paths are
> > blocked so
> > that attempts to DMA-map, vmap, or mmap the buffer fail in a
> > consistent way.
> 
> This sounds like it does not match how many GPU-drivers use the
> move_notify() callback.

No change for them.

> 
> move_notify() would typically invalidate any device maps and any
> asynchronous part of that invalidation would be complete when the dma-
> buf's reservation object becomes idle WRT DMA_RESV_USAGE_BOOKKEEP
> fences.

This part has not changed and remains the same for the revocation flow as well.

> 
> However, the importer could, after obtaining the resv lock, obtain a
> new map using dma_buf_map_attachment(), and I'd assume the CPU maps
> work in the same way, I.E. move_notify() does not *permanently* revoke
> importer access.

This part diverges by design and is documented to match revoke semantics.  
It defines what must occur after the exporter requests that the buffer be  
"killed". An importer that follows revoke semantics will not attempt to call  
dma_buf_map_attachment(), and the exporter will block any remapping attempts  
regardless. See the priv->revoked flag in the VFIO exporter.

In addition, in this email thread, Christian explains that revoke
semantics already exists, with the combination of dma_buf_pin and
dma_buf_move_notify, just not documented:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/f7f1856a-44fa-44af-b496-eb1267a05d11@amd.com/

Thanks

> 
> /Thomas
> 
> 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev
> > Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: iommu@lists.linux.dev
> > Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
> > To: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
> > To: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > To: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> > To: David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
> > To: Simona Vetter <simona@ffwll.ch>
> > To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> > To: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
> > To: Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org>
> > To: Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@gmail.com>
> > To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
> > To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
> > To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> > To: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> > To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> > To: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
> > To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
> > To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> > To: Alex Williamson <alex@shazbot.org>
> > 
> > ---
> > Leon Romanovsky (4):
> >       dma-buf: Rename .move_notify() callback to a clearer identifier
> >       dma-buf: Document revoke semantics
> >       iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics
> >       vfio: Add pinned interface to perform revoke semantics
> > 
> >  drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c                   |  6 +++---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c |  4 ++--
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c      |  2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c       |  6 +++---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c             |  2 +-
> >  drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c       |  4 ++--
> >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c             |  2 +-
> >  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c               | 11 +++++++++--
> >  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c          | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >  include/linux/dma-buf.h                     | 25
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >  10 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > ---
> > base-commit: 9ace4753a5202b02191d54e9fdf7f9e3d02b85eb
> > change-id: 20251221-dmabuf-revoke-b90ef16e4236
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > --  
> > Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > 
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

[Thomas Hellström]

On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 09:52 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 03:16:25PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > Hi, Leon,
> > 
> > On Sun, 2026-01-18 at 14:08 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > Changelog:
> > > v2:
> > >  * Changed series to document the revoke semantics instead of
> > >    implementing it.
> > > v1:
> > > https://patch.msgid.link/20260111-dmabuf-revoke-v1-0-fb4bcc8c259b@nvidia.com
> > > 
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
> > > ----
> > > This series documents a dma-buf “revoke” mechanism: to allow a
> > > dma-
> > > buf
> > > exporter to explicitly invalidate (“kill”) a shared buffer after
> > > it
> > > has
> > > been distributed to importers, so that further CPU and device
> > > access
> > > is
> > > prevented and importers reliably observe failure.
> > > 
> > > The change in this series is to properly document and use
> > > existing
> > > core
> > > “revoked” state on the dma-buf object and a corresponding
> > > exporter-
> > > triggered
> > > revoke operation. Once a dma-buf is revoked, new access paths are
> > > blocked so
> > > that attempts to DMA-map, vmap, or mmap the buffer fail in a
> > > consistent way.
> > 
> > This sounds like it does not match how many GPU-drivers use the
> > move_notify() callback.
> 
> No change for them.
> 
> > 
> > move_notify() would typically invalidate any device maps and any
> > asynchronous part of that invalidation would be complete when the
> > dma-
> > buf's reservation object becomes idle WRT DMA_RESV_USAGE_BOOKKEEP
> > fences.
> 
> This part has not changed and remains the same for the revocation
> flow as well.
> 
> > 
> > However, the importer could, after obtaining the resv lock, obtain
> > a
> > new map using dma_buf_map_attachment(), and I'd assume the CPU maps
> > work in the same way, I.E. move_notify() does not *permanently*
> > revoke
> > importer access.
> 
> This part diverges by design and is documented to match revoke
> semantics.  
> It defines what must occur after the exporter requests that the
> buffer be  
> "killed". An importer that follows revoke semantics will not attempt
> to call  
> dma_buf_map_attachment(), and the exporter will block any remapping
> attempts  
> regardless. See the priv->revoked flag in the VFIO exporter.
> 
> In addition, in this email thread, Christian explains that revoke
> semantics already exists, with the combination of dma_buf_pin and
> dma_buf_move_notify, just not documented:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f7f1856a-44fa-44af-b496-eb1267a05d11@amd.com/


Hmm,

Considering 

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.19-rc5/source/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c#L192

this sounds like it's not just undocumented but also in some cases
unimplemented. The xe driver for one doesn't expect move_notify() to be
called on pinned buffers, so if that is indeed going to be part of the
dma-buf protocol,  wouldn't support for that need to be advertised by
the importer?

Thanks,
Thomas

> 
> Thanks
> 
> > 
> > /Thomas
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 
> > > Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> > > Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev
> > > Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> > > Cc: iommu@lists.linux.dev
> > > Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
> > > To: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
> > > To: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > > To: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> > > To: David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
> > > To: Simona Vetter <simona@ffwll.ch>
> > > To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> > > To: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
> > > To: Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org>
> > > To: Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@gmail.com>
> > > To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > > To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
> > > To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
> > > To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> > > To: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > > To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> > > To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> > > To: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
> > > To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
> > > To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > > To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> > > To: Alex Williamson <alex@shazbot.org>
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > Leon Romanovsky (4):
> > >       dma-buf: Rename .move_notify() callback to a clearer
> > > identifier
> > >       dma-buf: Document revoke semantics
> > >       iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics
> > >       vfio: Add pinned interface to perform revoke semantics
> > > 
> > >  drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c                   |  6 +++---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c |  4 ++--
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c      |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c       |  6 +++---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c             |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c       |  4 ++--
> > >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c             |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c               | 11 +++++++++--
> > >  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c          | 16
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > >  include/linux/dma-buf.h                     | 25
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > >  10 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > ---
> > > base-commit: 9ace4753a5202b02191d54e9fdf7f9e3d02b85eb
> > > change-id: 20251221-dmabuf-revoke-b90ef16e4236
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > --  
> > > Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > 
> > 

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 10:27:00AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 09:52 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 03:16:25PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > Hi, Leon,
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 2026-01-18 at 14:08 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > Changelog:
> > > > v2:
> > > >  * Changed series to document the revoke semantics instead of
> > > >    implementing it.
> > > > v1:
> > > > https://patch.msgid.link/20260111-dmabuf-revoke-v1-0-fb4bcc8c259b@nvidia.com
> > > > 
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ----
> > > > ----
> > > > This series documents a dma-buf “revoke” mechanism: to allow a
> > > > dma-
> > > > buf
> > > > exporter to explicitly invalidate (“kill”) a shared buffer after
> > > > it
> > > > has
> > > > been distributed to importers, so that further CPU and device
> > > > access
> > > > is
> > > > prevented and importers reliably observe failure.
> > > > 
> > > > The change in this series is to properly document and use
> > > > existing
> > > > core
> > > > “revoked” state on the dma-buf object and a corresponding
> > > > exporter-
> > > > triggered
> > > > revoke operation. Once a dma-buf is revoked, new access paths are
> > > > blocked so
> > > > that attempts to DMA-map, vmap, or mmap the buffer fail in a
> > > > consistent way.
> > > 
> > > This sounds like it does not match how many GPU-drivers use the
> > > move_notify() callback.
> > 
> > No change for them.
> > 
> > > 
> > > move_notify() would typically invalidate any device maps and any
> > > asynchronous part of that invalidation would be complete when the
> > > dma-
> > > buf's reservation object becomes idle WRT DMA_RESV_USAGE_BOOKKEEP
> > > fences.
> > 
> > This part has not changed and remains the same for the revocation
> > flow as well.
> > 
> > > 
> > > However, the importer could, after obtaining the resv lock, obtain
> > > a
> > > new map using dma_buf_map_attachment(), and I'd assume the CPU maps
> > > work in the same way, I.E. move_notify() does not *permanently*
> > > revoke
> > > importer access.
> > 
> > This part diverges by design and is documented to match revoke
> > semantics.  
> > It defines what must occur after the exporter requests that the
> > buffer be  
> > "killed". An importer that follows revoke semantics will not attempt
> > to call  
> > dma_buf_map_attachment(), and the exporter will block any remapping
> > attempts  
> > regardless. See the priv->revoked flag in the VFIO exporter.
> > 
> > In addition, in this email thread, Christian explains that revoke
> > semantics already exists, with the combination of dma_buf_pin and
> > dma_buf_move_notify, just not documented:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/f7f1856a-44fa-44af-b496-eb1267a05d11@amd.com/
> 
> 
> Hmm,
> 
> Considering 
> 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.19-rc5/source/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c#L192
> 
> this sounds like it's not just undocumented but also in some cases
> unimplemented.

Yes, it was discussed later in the thread https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260112153503.GF745888@ziepe.ca/.
RDMA will need some adjustments later, but first we need to document the
existing semantics.

> The xe driver for one doesn't expect move_notify() to be
> called on pinned buffers, so if that is indeed going to be part of the
> dma-buf protocol,  wouldn't support for that need to be advertised by
> the importer?

This is what Jason proposed with "enum dma_buf_move_notify_level", but
for some reason we got no responses.

Thanks

> 
> Thanks,
> Thomas
> 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > > 
> > > /Thomas
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks
> > > > 
> > > > Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
> > > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev
> > > > Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Cc: iommu@lists.linux.dev
> > > > Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
> > > > To: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
> > > > To: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > > > To: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> > > > To: David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
> > > > To: Simona Vetter <simona@ffwll.ch>
> > > > To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> > > > To: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
> > > > To: Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org>
> > > > To: Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@gmail.com>
> > > > To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > > > To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
> > > > To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
> > > > To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> > > > To: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > > > To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > > To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> > > > To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> > > > To: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
> > > > To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
> > > > To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > > > To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> > > > To: Alex Williamson <alex@shazbot.org>
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > Leon Romanovsky (4):
> > > >       dma-buf: Rename .move_notify() callback to a clearer
> > > > identifier
> > > >       dma-buf: Document revoke semantics
> > > >       iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics
> > > >       vfio: Add pinned interface to perform revoke semantics
> > > > 
> > > >  drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c                   |  6 +++---
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c |  4 ++--
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c      |  2 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c       |  6 +++---
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c             |  2 +-
> > > >  drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c       |  4 ++--
> > > >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c             |  2 +-
> > > >  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c               | 11 +++++++++--
> > > >  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c          | 16
> > > > ++++++++++++++++
> > > >  include/linux/dma-buf.h                     | 25
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > >  10 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > > ---
> > > > base-commit: 9ace4753a5202b02191d54e9fdf7f9e3d02b85eb
> > > > change-id: 20251221-dmabuf-revoke-b90ef16e4236
> > > > 
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > --  
> > > > Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > > 
> > > 
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

[Christian König]

On 1/19/26 10:27, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 09:52 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 03:16:25PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>>> Hi, Leon,
>>>
>>> On Sun, 2026-01-18 at 14:08 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>> Changelog:
>>>> v2:
>>>>  * Changed series to document the revoke semantics instead of
>>>>    implementing it.
>>>> v1:
>>>> https://patch.msgid.link/20260111-dmabuf-revoke-v1-0-fb4bcc8c259b@nvidia.com
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----
>>>> ----
>>>> This series documents a dma-buf “revoke” mechanism: to allow a
>>>> dma-
>>>> buf
>>>> exporter to explicitly invalidate (“kill”) a shared buffer after
>>>> it
>>>> has
>>>> been distributed to importers, so that further CPU and device
>>>> access
>>>> is
>>>> prevented and importers reliably observe failure.
>>>>
>>>> The change in this series is to properly document and use
>>>> existing
>>>> core
>>>> “revoked” state on the dma-buf object and a corresponding
>>>> exporter-
>>>> triggered
>>>> revoke operation. Once a dma-buf is revoked, new access paths are
>>>> blocked so
>>>> that attempts to DMA-map, vmap, or mmap the buffer fail in a
>>>> consistent way.
>>>
>>> This sounds like it does not match how many GPU-drivers use the
>>> move_notify() callback.
>>
>> No change for them.
>>
>>>
>>> move_notify() would typically invalidate any device maps and any
>>> asynchronous part of that invalidation would be complete when the
>>> dma-
>>> buf's reservation object becomes idle WRT DMA_RESV_USAGE_BOOKKEEP
>>> fences.
>>
>> This part has not changed and remains the same for the revocation
>> flow as well.
>>
>>>
>>> However, the importer could, after obtaining the resv lock, obtain
>>> a
>>> new map using dma_buf_map_attachment(), and I'd assume the CPU maps
>>> work in the same way, I.E. move_notify() does not *permanently*
>>> revoke
>>> importer access.
>>
>> This part diverges by design and is documented to match revoke
>> semantics.  

Please don't document that. This is specific exporter behavior and doesn't belong into DMA-buf at all.

>> It defines what must occur after the exporter requests that the
>> buffer be  
>> "killed". An importer that follows revoke semantics will not attempt
>> to call  
>> dma_buf_map_attachment(), and the exporter will block any remapping
>> attempts  
>> regardless. See the priv->revoked flag in the VFIO exporter.

I have to clearly reject that.

It's the job of the exporter to reject such calls with an appropriate error and not the importer to not make them.

>> In addition, in this email thread, Christian explains that revoke
>> semantics already exists, with the combination of dma_buf_pin and
>> dma_buf_move_notify, just not documented:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f7f1856a-44fa-44af-b496-eb1267a05d11@amd.com/
> 
> 
> Hmm,
> 
> Considering 
> 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.19-rc5/source/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c#L192

Yes, that case is well known.

> this sounds like it's not just undocumented but also in some cases
> unimplemented. The xe driver for one doesn't expect move_notify() to be
> called on pinned buffers,

And that is what we need to change. See move_notify can happen on pinned buffers currently as well.

For example in the case of PCI hot unplug. After pinning we just don't call it for memory management needs any more.

We just haven't documented that properly.

> so if that is indeed going to be part of the
> dma-buf protocol,  wouldn't support for that need to be advertised by
> the importer?

That's what this patch set here should do, yes.

Regards,
Christian.

> 
> Thanks,
> Thomas
> 
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>>
>>> /Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
>>>> Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>>> Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev
>>>> Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
>>>> Cc: iommu@lists.linux.dev
>>>> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
>>>> To: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
>>>> To: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
>>>> To: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
>>>> To: David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
>>>> To: Simona Vetter <simona@ffwll.ch>
>>>> To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
>>>> To: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
>>>> To: Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org>
>>>> To: Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@gmail.com>
>>>> To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
>>>> To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
>>>> To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
>>>> To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>>>> To: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
>>>> To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>>>> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
>>>> To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
>>>> To: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
>>>> To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
>>>> To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>>>> To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
>>>> To: Alex Williamson <alex@shazbot.org>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Leon Romanovsky (4):
>>>>       dma-buf: Rename .move_notify() callback to a clearer
>>>> identifier
>>>>       dma-buf: Document revoke semantics
>>>>       iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics
>>>>       vfio: Add pinned interface to perform revoke semantics
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c                   |  6 +++---
>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c |  4 ++--
>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c      |  2 +-
>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c       |  6 +++---
>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c             |  2 +-
>>>>  drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c       |  4 ++--
>>>>  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c             |  2 +-
>>>>  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c               | 11 +++++++++--
>>>>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c          | 16
>>>> ++++++++++++++++
>>>>  include/linux/dma-buf.h                     | 25
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>  10 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>> ---
>>>> base-commit: 9ace4753a5202b02191d54e9fdf7f9e3d02b85eb
>>>> change-id: 20251221-dmabuf-revoke-b90ef16e4236
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> --  
>>>> Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
>>>>
>>>
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 11:20:46AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> On 1/19/26 10:27, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 09:52 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 03:16:25PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> >>> Hi, Leon,
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 2026-01-18 at 14:08 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >>>> Changelog:
> >>>> v2:
> >>>>  * Changed series to document the revoke semantics instead of
> >>>>    implementing it.
> >>>> v1:
> >>>> https://patch.msgid.link/20260111-dmabuf-revoke-v1-0-fb4bcc8c259b@nvidia.com
> >>>>
> >>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> ----
> >>>> ----
> >>>> This series documents a dma-buf “revoke” mechanism: to allow a
> >>>> dma-
> >>>> buf
> >>>> exporter to explicitly invalidate (“kill”) a shared buffer after
> >>>> it
> >>>> has
> >>>> been distributed to importers, so that further CPU and device
> >>>> access
> >>>> is
> >>>> prevented and importers reliably observe failure.
> >>>>
> >>>> The change in this series is to properly document and use
> >>>> existing
> >>>> core
> >>>> “revoked” state on the dma-buf object and a corresponding
> >>>> exporter-
> >>>> triggered
> >>>> revoke operation. Once a dma-buf is revoked, new access paths are
> >>>> blocked so
> >>>> that attempts to DMA-map, vmap, or mmap the buffer fail in a
> >>>> consistent way.
> >>>
> >>> This sounds like it does not match how many GPU-drivers use the
> >>> move_notify() callback.
> >>
> >> No change for them.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> move_notify() would typically invalidate any device maps and any
> >>> asynchronous part of that invalidation would be complete when the
> >>> dma-
> >>> buf's reservation object becomes idle WRT DMA_RESV_USAGE_BOOKKEEP
> >>> fences.
> >>
> >> This part has not changed and remains the same for the revocation
> >> flow as well.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> However, the importer could, after obtaining the resv lock, obtain
> >>> a
> >>> new map using dma_buf_map_attachment(), and I'd assume the CPU maps
> >>> work in the same way, I.E. move_notify() does not *permanently*
> >>> revoke
> >>> importer access.
> >>
> >> This part diverges by design and is documented to match revoke
> >> semantics.  
> 
> Please don't document that. This is specific exporter behavior and doesn't belong into DMA-buf at all.
> 
> >> It defines what must occur after the exporter requests that the
> >> buffer be  
> >> "killed". An importer that follows revoke semantics will not attempt
> >> to call  
> >> dma_buf_map_attachment(), and the exporter will block any remapping
> >> attempts  
> >> regardless. See the priv->revoked flag in the VFIO exporter.
> 
> I have to clearly reject that.
> 
> It's the job of the exporter to reject such calls with an appropriate error and not the importer to not make them.

Current code behaves as expected: the exporter rejects mapping attempts after
.invalidate_mapping is called, and handles the logic internally.

However, it is not clear what exactly you are proposing. In v1 — which you
objected to — I suggested negotiating revoke support along with the logic for
rejecting mappings in the dma-buf core. In this version, you object to placing
the rejection logic in the exporter.

> 
> >> In addition, in this email thread, Christian explains that revoke
> >> semantics already exists, with the combination of dma_buf_pin and
> >> dma_buf_move_notify, just not documented:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f7f1856a-44fa-44af-b496-eb1267a05d11@amd.com/
> > 
> > 
> > Hmm,
> > 
> > Considering 
> > 
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.19-rc5/source/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c#L192
> 
> Yes, that case is well known.
> 
> > this sounds like it's not just undocumented but also in some cases
> > unimplemented. The xe driver for one doesn't expect move_notify() to be
> > called on pinned buffers,
> 
> And that is what we need to change. See move_notify can happen on pinned buffers currently as well.
> 
> For example in the case of PCI hot unplug. After pinning we just don't call it for memory management needs any more.
> 
> We just haven't documented that properly.
> 
> > so if that is indeed going to be part of the
> > dma-buf protocol,  wouldn't support for that need to be advertised by
> > the importer?
> 
> That's what this patch set here should do, yes.
> 
> Regards,
> Christian.
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Thomas
> > 
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >>>
> >>> /Thomas
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>>
> >>>> Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> >>>> Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> >>>> Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
> >>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> >>>> Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> >>>> Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev
> >>>> Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
> >>>> Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> >>>> Cc: iommu@lists.linux.dev
> >>>> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
> >>>> To: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
> >>>> To: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> >>>> To: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> >>>> To: David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
> >>>> To: Simona Vetter <simona@ffwll.ch>
> >>>> To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> >>>> To: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
> >>>> To: Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org>
> >>>> To: Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@gmail.com>
> >>>> To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> >>>> To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
> >>>> To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
> >>>> To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> >>>> To: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> >>>> To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> >>>> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> >>>> To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> >>>> To: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
> >>>> To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
> >>>> To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> >>>> To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> >>>> To: Alex Williamson <alex@shazbot.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Leon Romanovsky (4):
> >>>>       dma-buf: Rename .move_notify() callback to a clearer
> >>>> identifier
> >>>>       dma-buf: Document revoke semantics
> >>>>       iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics
> >>>>       vfio: Add pinned interface to perform revoke semantics
> >>>>
> >>>>  drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c                   |  6 +++---
> >>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c |  4 ++--
> >>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c      |  2 +-
> >>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c       |  6 +++---
> >>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c             |  2 +-
> >>>>  drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c       |  4 ++--
> >>>>  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c             |  2 +-
> >>>>  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c               | 11 +++++++++--
> >>>>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c          | 16
> >>>> ++++++++++++++++
> >>>>  include/linux/dma-buf.h                     | 25
> >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >>>>  10 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >>>> ---
> >>>> base-commit: 9ace4753a5202b02191d54e9fdf7f9e3d02b85eb
> >>>> change-id: 20251221-dmabuf-revoke-b90ef16e4236
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> --  
> >>>> Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> >>>>
> >>>
> > 
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

[Christian König]

On 1/19/26 11:53, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 11:20:46AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
>> On 1/19/26 10:27, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 09:52 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 03:16:25PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>>>>> Hi, Leon,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 2026-01-18 at 14:08 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>>>> Changelog:
>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>>  * Changed series to document the revoke semantics instead of
>>>>>>    implementing it.
>>>>>> v1:
>>>>>> https://patch.msgid.link/20260111-dmabuf-revoke-v1-0-fb4bcc8c259b@nvidia.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> This series documents a dma-buf “revoke” mechanism: to allow a
>>>>>> dma-
>>>>>> buf
>>>>>> exporter to explicitly invalidate (“kill”) a shared buffer after
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> been distributed to importers, so that further CPU and device
>>>>>> access
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> prevented and importers reliably observe failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The change in this series is to properly document and use
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> core
>>>>>> “revoked” state on the dma-buf object and a corresponding
>>>>>> exporter-
>>>>>> triggered
>>>>>> revoke operation. Once a dma-buf is revoked, new access paths are
>>>>>> blocked so
>>>>>> that attempts to DMA-map, vmap, or mmap the buffer fail in a
>>>>>> consistent way.
>>>>>
>>>>> This sounds like it does not match how many GPU-drivers use the
>>>>> move_notify() callback.
>>>>
>>>> No change for them.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> move_notify() would typically invalidate any device maps and any
>>>>> asynchronous part of that invalidation would be complete when the
>>>>> dma-
>>>>> buf's reservation object becomes idle WRT DMA_RESV_USAGE_BOOKKEEP
>>>>> fences.
>>>>
>>>> This part has not changed and remains the same for the revocation
>>>> flow as well.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the importer could, after obtaining the resv lock, obtain
>>>>> a
>>>>> new map using dma_buf_map_attachment(), and I'd assume the CPU maps
>>>>> work in the same way, I.E. move_notify() does not *permanently*
>>>>> revoke
>>>>> importer access.
>>>>
>>>> This part diverges by design and is documented to match revoke
>>>> semantics.  
>>
>> Please don't document that. This is specific exporter behavior and doesn't belong into DMA-buf at all.
>>
>>>> It defines what must occur after the exporter requests that the
>>>> buffer be  
>>>> "killed". An importer that follows revoke semantics will not attempt
>>>> to call  
>>>> dma_buf_map_attachment(), and the exporter will block any remapping
>>>> attempts  
>>>> regardless. See the priv->revoked flag in the VFIO exporter.
>>
>> I have to clearly reject that.
>>
>> It's the job of the exporter to reject such calls with an appropriate error and not the importer to not make them.
> 
> Current code behaves as expected: the exporter rejects mapping attempts after
> .invalidate_mapping is called, and handles the logic internally.
> 
> However, it is not clear what exactly you are proposing. In v1 — which you
> objected to — I suggested negotiating revoke support along with the logic for
> rejecting mappings in the dma-buf core. In this version, you object to placing
> the rejection logic in the exporter.

Sorry I probably wasn't explaining this correctly.

I was rejecting the idea of doing this in the framework, e.g. the middle layer, or that importers would be force to drop their references.

That an exporter rejects attempts to attach or map a resource is perfectly valid.

Regards,
Christian.

> 
>>
>>>> In addition, in this email thread, Christian explains that revoke
>>>> semantics already exists, with the combination of dma_buf_pin and
>>>> dma_buf_move_notify, just not documented:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f7f1856a-44fa-44af-b496-eb1267a05d11@amd.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm,
>>>
>>> Considering 
>>>
>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.19-rc5/source/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c#L192
>>
>> Yes, that case is well known.
>>
>>> this sounds like it's not just undocumented but also in some cases
>>> unimplemented. The xe driver for one doesn't expect move_notify() to be
>>> called on pinned buffers,
>>
>> And that is what we need to change. See move_notify can happen on pinned buffers currently as well.
>>
>> For example in the case of PCI hot unplug. After pinning we just don't call it for memory management needs any more.
>>
>> We just haven't documented that properly.
>>
>>> so if that is indeed going to be part of the
>>> dma-buf protocol,  wouldn't support for that need to be advertised by
>>> the importer?
>>
>> That's what this patch set here should do, yes.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christian.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> /Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>> Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>>>>>> Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
>>>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>> Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>>>>>> Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev
>>>>>> Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
>>>>>> Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>> Cc: iommu@lists.linux.dev
>>>>>> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>> To: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
>>>>>> To: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
>>>>>> To: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
>>>>>> To: David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: Simona Vetter <simona@ffwll.ch>
>>>>>> To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
>>>>>> To: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
>>>>>> To: Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org>
>>>>>> To: Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
>>>>>> To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
>>>>>> To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
>>>>>> To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>>>>>> To: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
>>>>>> To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>>>>>> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
>>>>>> To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
>>>>>> To: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
>>>>>> To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
>>>>>> To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>>>>>> To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
>>>>>> To: Alex Williamson <alex@shazbot.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Leon Romanovsky (4):
>>>>>>       dma-buf: Rename .move_notify() callback to a clearer
>>>>>> identifier
>>>>>>       dma-buf: Document revoke semantics
>>>>>>       iommufd: Require DMABUF revoke semantics
>>>>>>       vfio: Add pinned interface to perform revoke semantics
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c                   |  6 +++---
>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_dma_buf.c |  4 ++--
>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_prime.c      |  2 +-
>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_dma_buf.c       |  6 +++---
>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_dma_buf.c             |  2 +-
>>>>>>  drivers/infiniband/core/umem_dmabuf.c       |  4 ++--
>>>>>>  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c             |  2 +-
>>>>>>  drivers/iommu/iommufd/pages.c               | 11 +++++++++--
>>>>>>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c          | 16
>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>  include/linux/dma-buf.h                     | 25
>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>>  10 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> base-commit: 9ace4753a5202b02191d54e9fdf7f9e3d02b85eb
>>>>>> change-id: 20251221-dmabuf-revoke-b90ef16e4236
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> --  
>>>>>> Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 10:27:00AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> this sounds like it's not just undocumented but also in some cases
> unimplemented. The xe driver for one doesn't expect move_notify() to be
> called on pinned buffers, so if that is indeed going to be part of the
> dma-buf protocol,  wouldn't support for that need to be advertised by
> the importer?

Can you clarify this?

I don't see xe's importer calling dma_buf_pin() or dma_buf_attach()
outside of tests? It's importer implements a fully functional looking
dynamic attach with move_notify()?

I see the exporer is checking for pinned and then not calling
move_notify - is that what you mean?

When I looked through all the importers only RDMA obviously didn't
support move_notify on pinned buffers.

Jason

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

[Thomas Hellström]

On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 12:24 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 10:27:00AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > this sounds like it's not just undocumented but also in some cases
> > unimplemented. The xe driver for one doesn't expect move_notify()
> > to be
> > called on pinned buffers, so if that is indeed going to be part of
> > the
> > dma-buf protocol,  wouldn't support for that need to be advertised
> > by
> > the importer?
> 
> Can you clarify this?
> 
> I don't see xe's importer calling dma_buf_pin() or dma_buf_attach()
> outside of tests? It's importer implements a fully functional looking
> dynamic attach with move_notify()?
> 
> I see the exporer is checking for pinned and then not calling
> move_notify - is that what you mean?

No it was if move_notify() is called on a pinned buffer, things will
probably blow up.

And I was under the impression that we'd might be pinning imported
framebuffers but either we don't get any of those or we're using the
incorrect interface to pin, so it might not be a big issue from the xe
side. Need to check this.

In any case we'd want to support revoking also of pinned buffers moving
forward, so question really becomes whether in the mean-time we need to
flag somehow that we don't support it.

Thanks,
Thomas


> 
> When I looked through all the importers only RDMA obviously didn't
> support move_notify on pinned buffers.
> 
> Jason

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 03:16:25PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > core
> > “revoked” state on the dma-buf object and a corresponding exporter-
> > triggered
> > revoke operation. Once a dma-buf is revoked, new access paths are
> > blocked so
> > that attempts to DMA-map, vmap, or mmap the buffer fail in a
> > consistent way.
> 
> This sounds like it does not match how many GPU-drivers use the
> move_notify() callback.
> 
> move_notify() would typically invalidate any device maps and any
> asynchronous part of that invalidation would be complete when the dma-
> buf's reservation object becomes idle WRT DMA_RESV_USAGE_BOOKKEEP
> fences.
> 
> However, the importer could, after obtaining the resv lock, obtain a
> new map using dma_buf_map_attachment(), and I'd assume the CPU maps
> work in the same way, I.E. move_notify() does not *permanently* revoke
> importer access.

I think this was explained a bit in this thread, but I wanted to
repeat the explanation to be really clear..

If the attachment is not pinned than calling move_notify() is as you
say. The importer should expect multiple move_notify() calls and
handle all of them. The exporter can move the location around and make
it revoked/unrevoked at will. If it is revoked then
dma_buf_map_attachment() fails, the importer could cache this and fail
DMAs until the next move_notify().

If the attachment is *pinned* then we propose to allow the importer to
revoke only and not require restoration. IOW a later move_notify()
that signals a previously failing dma_buf_map_attachment() is no
longer failing can be igmored by a pinned importer.

This at least matches what iommufd is able to do right now.

IOW, calling move_notify() on a pinned DMABUF is a special operationg
we are calling "revoke" and means that the exporter accepts that the
mapping is potentially gone from pinned importers forever. ie don't
use it lightly.

Jason

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-buf: document revoke mechanism to invalidate shared buffers

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 02:08:44PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> Changelog:
> v2:
>  * Changed series to document the revoke semantics instead of
>    implementing it.
> v1: https://patch.msgid.link/20260111-dmabuf-revoke-v1-0-fb4bcc8c259b@nvidia.com
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This series documents a dma-buf “revoke” mechanism: to allow a dma-buf
> exporter to explicitly invalidate (“kill”) a shared buffer after it has
> been distributed to importers, so that further CPU and device access is
> prevented and importers reliably observe failure.
> 
> The change in this series is to properly document and use existing core
> “revoked” state on the dma-buf object and a corresponding exporter-triggered
> revoke operation. Once a dma-buf is revoked, new access paths are blocked so
> that attempts to DMA-map, vmap, or mmap the buffer fail in a consistent way.

I think it would help to explain the bigger picture in the cover letter:


DMABUF has quietly allowed calling move_notify on pinned DMABUFs, even
though legacy importers using dma_buf_attach() would simply ignore
these calls.

RDMA saw this and needed to use allow_peer2peer=true, so implemented a
new-style pinned importer with an explicitly non-working move_notify()
callback.

This has been tolerable because the existing exporters are thought to
only call move_notify() on a pinned DMABUF under RAS events and we
have been willing to tolerate the UAF that results by allowing the
importer to continue to use the mapping in this rare case.

VFIO wants to implement a pin supporting exporter that will issue a
revoking move_notify() around FLRs and a few other user triggerable
operations. Since this is much more common we are not willing to
tolerate the security UAF caused by interworking with
non-move_notify() supporting drivers. Thus till now VFIO has required
dynamic importers, even though it never actually moves the buffer
location.

To allow VFIO to work with pinned importers, according to how DMABUF
was intended, we need to allow VFIO to detect if an importer is legacy
or RDMA and does not actually implement move_notify().

Introduce a new function that exporters can call to detect these less
capable importers. VFIO can then refuse to accept them during attach.

In theory all exporters that call move_notify() on pinned DMABUF's
should call this function, however that would break a number of widely
used NIC/GPU flows. Thus for now do not spread this further than VFIO
until we can understand how much of RDMA can implement the full
semantic.

In the process clarify how move_notify is intended to be used with
pinned DMABUFs.

Jason