[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jCGxWG0opLv4VzBRk5iLwu6CRse4DwF-otWkfXoGWe6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 14:09:35 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"Linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/15] PCI: Obey iomem restrictions for procfs mmap
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:28 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.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@...el.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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists