On 2026/09/18 19:13, Huang, Honglei wrote:
This patch is for adding ROCm capset only, can be spited into another
thread if it is needed.
Regards,
Honglei
On 9/18/2026 6:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential
issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] virtio-gpu: premature UAPI exposure of unfinalized
capability ID
- [Low] virtio-gpu: missing DRM UAPI alias for ROCM capability set
--
commit a394228d77eeafc9f1dcc36150380f8561f1ee49
Author: Honglei Huang <[email protected]>
drm/virtio-gpu: Add VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_ROCM capability
This commit adds a new GPU capability set VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_ROCM with
ID 8
to support ROCm compute workloads. The commit message notes that the
matching virtio-gpu specification change is currently in progress.
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_gpu.h b/include/uapi/linux/
virtio_gpu.h
index 4f530d90058c7..3d4dfadc9d789 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_gpu.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_gpu.h
@@ -321,6 +321,7 @@ struct virtio_gpu_cmd_submit {
#define VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_VENUS 4
#define VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_CROSS_DOMAIN 5
#define VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_DRM 6
+#define VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_ROCM 8
[Severity: Medium]
Is it safe to expose this speculative capability ID to userspace
before the
virtio-gpu specification is finalized?
The commit message states the specification change for ID 8 is in
progress.
Because the Linux UAPI is frozen once released, exposing this ID now
could
permanently commit the kernel to ID 8 for ROCm. If the OASIS virtio
technical committee assigns a different ID or rejects the proposal, would
this leave the Linux UAPI permanently incompatible with the standard?
It is actually somewhat common to introduce a capset before updating the
virtio specification, as capsets remain opaque to both the spec and the
kernel without strict interface stability enforcement (for example,
VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_DRM is still not in the spec). However, we must at
least wait until the virglrenderer developers agree to implement it.
An unfortunate complication is that gfxstream has already claimed
capsets 7–9 prior to updating the spec or kernel headers:
https://github.com/magma-gpu/rutabaga_gfx/blob/v0.1.85/ffi/src/include/rutabaga_gfx_ffi.h#L41-L43
You could target capset 10 instead, but I advise coordinating with the
VCL developers first to avoid further collisions.
Additionally, "[PATCH v8 2/4] drm/virtgpu api: add blob userptr
resource" poses a more critical issue: it adds
VIRTIO_GPU_F_BLOB_READONLY and VIRTIO_GPU_BLOB_FLAG_USE_READONLY,
directly altering semantics explicitly defined in the spec. We should
see at least a draft spec patch posted before moving forward, so this
series should remain an RFC until then.
[Severity: Low]
Also, should there be a corresponding DRM UAPI alias added for this
capability
set?
Previous capability sets have matching definitions in virtgpu_drm.h,
such as
VIRTGPU_DRM_CAPSET_VENUS and VIRTGPU_DRM_CAPSET_DRM. Without adding a
similar
VIRTGPU_DRM_CAPSET_ROCM alias, userspace DRM clients relying on
virtgpu_drm.h
for the DRM_IOCTL_VIRTGPU_GET_CAPS ioctl will lack the necessary
constant to
query ROCm capabilities natively.
As for Sashiko's suggestion regarding DRM UAPI aliases, while I am
unsure why those aliases were introduced initially, adding one here
makes sense for internal consistency.
Regards,
Akihiko Odaki
/* VIRTIO_GPU_CMD_GET_CAPSET_INFO */
struct virtio_gpu_get_capset_info {
