linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: "Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@kernel.org>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"DRI Development" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"KVM list" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, "Linux MM" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"Linux ARM" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Linux-media@vger.kernel.org" <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"John Hubbard" <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	"Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>, "Jan Kara" <jack@suse.cz>,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"Linux PCI" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/15] PCI: Obey iomem restrictions for procfs mmap
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 10:34:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201105093409.GR401619@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4idORJzHVD2vCOnO3REqWHKVn_-otOzTBf0HhcWq4iJRQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 12:12:15PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 8:50 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 09:44:04AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 11:09 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:28 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:08:11AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > > There's three ways to access PCI BARs from userspace: /dev/mem, sysfs
> > > > > > files, and the old proc interface. Two check against
> > > > > > iomem_is_exclusive, proc never did. And with CONFIG_IO_STRICT_DEVMEM,
> > > > > > this starts to matter, since we don't want random userspace having
> > > > > > access to PCI BARs while a driver is loaded and using it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fix this by adding the same iomem_is_exclusive() check we already have
> > > > > > on the sysfs side in pci_mmap_resource().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > References: 90a545e98126 ("restrict /dev/mem to idle io memory ranges")
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > This is OK with me but it looks like IORESOURCE_EXCLUSIVE is currently
> > > > > only used in a few places:
> > > > >
> > > > >   e1000_probe() calls pci_request_selected_regions_exclusive(),
> > > > >   ne_pci_probe() calls pci_request_regions_exclusive(),
> > > > >   vmbus_allocate_mmio() calls request_mem_region_exclusive()
> > > > >
> > > > > which raises the question of whether it's worth keeping
> > > > > IORESOURCE_EXCLUSIVE at all.  I'm totally fine with removing it
> > > > > completely.
> > > >
> > > > Now that CONFIG_IO_STRICT_DEVMEM upgrades IORESOURCE_BUSY to
> > > > IORESOURCE_EXCLUSIVE semantics the latter has lost its meaning so I'd
> > > > be in favor of removing it as well.
> > >
> > > Still has some value since it enforces exclusive access even if the
> > > config isn't enabled, and iirc e1000 had some fun with userspace tools
> > > clobbering the firmware and bricking the chip.
> >
> > There's *some* value; I'm just skeptical since only three drivers use
> > it.
> >
> > IORESOURCE_EXCLUSIVE is from e8de1481fd71 ("resource: allow MMIO
> > exclusivity for device drivers"), and the commit message says this is
> > only active when CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM is set.  I didn't check to see
> > whether that's still true.
> >
> > That commit adds a bunch of wrappers and "__"-prefixed functions to
> > pass the IORESOURCE_EXCLUSIVE flag around.  That's a fair bit of
> > uglification for three drivers.
> >
> > > Another thing I kinda wondered, since pci maintainer is here: At least
> > > in drivers/gpu I see very few drivers explicitly requestion regions
> > > (this might be a historical artifact due to the shadow attach stuff
> > > before we had real modesetting drivers). And pci core doesn't do that
> > > either, even when a driver is bound. Is this intentional, or
> > > should/could we do better? Since drivers work happily without
> > > reserving regions I don't think "the drivers need to remember to do
> > > this" will ever really work out well.
> >
> > You're right, many drivers don't call pci_request_regions().  Maybe we
> > could do better, but I haven't looked into that recently.  There is a
> > related note in Documentation/PCI/pci.rst that's been there for a long
> > time (it refers to "pci_request_resources()", which has never existed
> > AFAICT).  I'm certainly open to proposals.
> 
> It seems a bug that the kernel permits MMIO regions with side effects
> to be ioremap()'ed without request_mem_region() on the resource. I
> wonder how much log spam would happen if ioremap() reported whenever a
> non-IORESOURE_BUSY range was passed to it? The current state of
> affairs to trust *remap users to have claimed their remap target seems
> too ingrained to unwind now.

Yeah I think that's hopeless. I think the only feasible approach is if bus
drivers claim resources by default when a driver is bound (it should nest,
so if the driver claims again, I think that should all keep working), just
using the driver name. Probably with some special casing for legacy io
(vgaarb.c should claim these I guess). Still probably tons of fallout.

Once that's rolled out to all bus drivers we could perhaps add the ioremap
check without drowning in log spam. Still a multi-year project I think :-/
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

  reply	other threads:[~2020-11-05  9:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20201030100815.2269-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
2020-10-30 10:08 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-03 21:28   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-11-03 22:09     ` Dan Williams
2020-11-04  8:44       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-04 16:50         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-11-04 20:12           ` Dan Williams
2020-11-05  9:34             ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2020-10-30 10:08 ` [PATCH v5 14/15] sysfs: Support zapping of binary attr mmaps Daniel Vetter
2020-10-30 10:08 ` [PATCH v5 15/15] PCI: Revoke mappings like devmem Daniel Vetter
2020-10-30 19:22   ` Dan Williams
2020-11-03 21:30   ` Bjorn Helgaas

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20201105093409.GR401619@phenom.ffwll.local \
    --to=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
    --cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v5 11/15] PCI: Obey iomem restrictions for procfs mmap' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).