> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 5:31 PM > > This exposes PCIe PASID capability to userspace and where to emulate this > capability if wants to further expose it to VM. > > And this only exposes PASID capability for devices which has PCIe PASID > extended struture in its configuration space. While for VFs, userspace > is still unable to see this capability as SR-IOV spec forbides VF to > implement PASID capability extended structure. It is a TODO in future. > Related discussion can be found in below links: > > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20200407095801.648b1371@xxxxxxxxx/ > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/BL1PR11MB5271A60035EF591A5BE8AC878C01A > @BL1PR11MB5271.namprd11.prod.outlook.com/ > Yes, we need a decision for VF case. If the consensus is to continue exposing the PASID capability in vfio-pci config space by developing a kernel quirk mechanism to find offset for VF, then this patch for PF is orthogonal to that VF work and can go as it is. But if the decision is to have a device feature for the user to enumerate the vPASID capability and let the VMM take care of finding the vPASID cap offset, then better we start doing that for PF too since it's not good to have two enumeration interfaces for PF/VF respectively. My preference is via device feature given Qemu already includes lots of quirks for vfio-pci devices. Another reason is that when supporting vPASID with SIOV there are some arch constraints which the driver needs to report to the user to follow (e.g. don't assign ENQCMD-capable sibling vdev's to a same guest, etc.). A device feature interface can better encapsulate everything related to vPASID in one place. Thanks Kevin
