On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:39:00AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 02:39:19PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 09:08:10AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 11:47:33AM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote: > > > > > > > VFIO doesn't have enough information, but VFIO needs to know about > > > > bound state. So comes the suggestion [1] that the VFIO uAPI, then VFIO > > > > reach into iommufd for real bind. > > > > > > > > And my implementation [2] is: > > > > > > > > ioctl(vfio_cdev_fd, VFIO_DEVICE_TSM_BIND) > > > > -> vfio_iommufd_tsm_bind() > > > > -> iommufd_device_tsm_bind() > > > > -> iommufd_vdevice_tsm_bind() > > > > -> pci_tsm_bind() > > > > > > This doesn't work, logically you are binding the vdevice, not the > > > idevice, the uapi should provide the vdevice id, which VFIO doesn't > > > have. > > > > Yes. Sorry I just too lazy to provide the full API format. > > > > The original suggestion [1] is to provide vdevice_id in VFIO uAPI. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250515175658.GR382960@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > And here is a piece of the implementation in [2]: > > > > +struct vfio_pci_tsm_bind { > > + __u32 argsz; > > + __u32 flags; > > + __u32 vdevice_id; > > + __u32 pad; > > +}; > > + > > +#define VFIO_DEVICE_TSM_BIND _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 22) > > I don't want to pass iommufd IDs through vfio as much as possibile, it > makes no logical sense. OK. Thanks, Yilun
