undefined

points

[-]

I’m not very familiar with the specifics of pass through but IIUC only being able to map 1.5gb of active DMA buffers at a time is pretty limiting.

by monocasa11 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Isn't driverkit essentially a separate user space stack compared to regular code? I remember seeing the driverkit specific dyld caches in macos root partition images that included their own copies of everything down to libsystem. Getting driverkit code to run in the same process as normal user code seems like it'd be quite an uphill battle.

Presumably with the right entitlements you can just hit the same (presumably IOKit) syscalls that driverkit does. But that's an extra layer of reverse engineering, and you're not really using driverkit anymore.

by scottjg11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

it is a separate stack, but that probably doesn't matter much. a user process (in my case, qemu) can communicate with a driverkit driver. the user process can also map memory through the driver, which is how this pci passthrough system works.

i don't think the issues with the project really are specific to driverkit.

by mikae115 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

>> This project requires a special entitlement from Apple. I’ve requested it, and heard they may be open to granting it, but I have not yet heard back, and I’m told that the wait time could be months.

> I have been bothering the VM team for years for VM GPU pass through.

Good luck. I'm sure they're keen on giving people access to this so that people can spend their money on NVIDIA GPUs instead of buying more expensive Macs. :)

Would of course be awesome, but I'd be very surprised if it happened.

by codebje12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

There isn't a more expensive Mac option to buy if what you're after is a gaming GPU. It's more likely that the VM team sees this as a very low benefit ticket to pursue given the tiny segment of Mac gamers hoping to improve their options with a Linux VM for gaming.

(Meanwhile, I'm recompiling Wine to see if I can patch it to address an issue that was hotfixed in Proton two weeks ago but isn't in a CrossOver build yet, so yeah, there's maybe some arguments to be made here that I'd be a potential beneficiary. If I weren't too cheap to spring for an eGPU in today's market, anyway.)

by m13212 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

The entitlement in question is the standard `com.apple.developer.driverkit.transport.pci` [0], required for anything that touches the PCIe bus [1]. Apple is generally restrictive with how much third-party applications can do on machines with SIP/"full security", so I'm not exactly surprised. It's not an Apple-private entitlement, however.

The VFIO-style driver made by the author of this also appears generic enough to support all kinds of PCIe, not just GPUs. Apple might find a way to weasel out of this ("hey, this is for hardware companies and you don't seem to be affiliated with one", "your driver requests too broad access", etc.) if there really is a conflict of interest, but so far, there's a chance it will just get rubber-stamped.

I can see them rejecting it for legitimate reasons, though, at least as far as "legitimate" with Apple goes. This driver is essentially a thin layer over PCIDriverKit, exposing all functionality that's supposed to be behind the entitlement to arbitrary applications, in similar fashion to WinRing0. They probably didn't come up with all this bureaucracy only to sign something like that in the end. We'll see what happens.

[0] https://github.com/scottjg/qemu-vfio-apple/blob/84ecdcf5db6b...

[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/pcidriverkit/creat...