[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <69fc30f4-e3e2-add7-ec13-4db3b9cc0cbd@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 17:23:17 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
James E J Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Peter H Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/15] pci: Add pci_iomap_shared{,_range}
On 8/30/2021 1:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
>> Or we can add _audited to the name. ioremap_shared_audited?
> But it's not the mapping that has to be done in handled special way.
> It's any data we get from device, not all of it coming from IO, e.g.
> there's DMA and interrupts that all have to be validated.
> Wouldn't you say that what is really wanted is just not running
> unaudited drivers in the first place?
Yes.
>
>> And we've been avoiding that drivers can self declare auditing, we've been
>> trying to have a separate centralized list so that it's easier to enforce
>> and avoids any cut'n'paste mistakes.
>>
>> -Andi
> Now I'm confused. What is proposed here seems to be basically that,
> drivers need to declare auditing by replacing ioremap with
> ioremap_shared.
Auditing is declared on the device model level using a central allow list.
But this cannot do anything to initcalls that run before probe, that's
why an extra level of defense of ioremap opt-in is useful. But it's not
the primary mechanism to declare a driver audited, that's the allow
list. The ioremap is just another mechanism to avoid having to touch a
lot of legacy drivers.
If we agree on that then the original proposed semantics of
"ioremap_shared" may be acceptable?
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists