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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201104165017.GA352206@bjorn-Precision-5520>
Date:   Wed, 4 Nov 2020 10:50:17 -0600
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        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 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@...el.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> 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.