Re: [PATCH v5 11/15] PCI: Obey iomem restrictions for procfs mmap

From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: "Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@kernel.org>,
	"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: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 09:44:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uF0QjesaNs97N-G8cZkXuAmFgcmTfHvoCP94br_WVcV6Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4jCGxWG0opLv4VzBRk5iLwu6CRse4DwF-otWkfXoGWe6A@mail.gmail.com>

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.

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.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch