Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201007164426.1812530-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20201007164426.1812530-11-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <CAPcyv4hBL68A7CZa+YnooufDH2tevoxrx32DTJMQ6OHRnec7QQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKMK7uFoxiPdjO-yhd-mKqumnTpjcENEReb1sOYhOwRRCL0wpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPcyv4jGxsB5so8mKqYrsn2CEc7nO2yPvzZZ_mvM_-R=BZfKHg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4jGxsB5so8mKqYrsn2CEc7nO2yPvzZZ_mvM_-R=BZfKHg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 15:29:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4iN1q0LUVTO6igMKPe-8hnR5ULF+mBnWy6bdXfY2M6YmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] PCI: revoke mappings like devmem
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc:     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>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@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>,
        =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:23 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 12:49 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 9:33 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:11 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Since 3234ac664a87 ("/dev/mem: Revoke mappings when a driver claims
> > > > the region") /dev/kmem zaps ptes when the kernel requests exclusive
> > > > acccess to an iomem region. And with CONFIG_IO_STRICT_DEVMEM, this is
> > > > the default for all driver uses.
> > > >
> > > > Except there's two more ways to access pci bars: sysfs and proc mmap
> > > > support. Let's plug that hole.
> > >
> > > Ooh, yes, lets.
> > >
> > > > For revoke_devmem() to work we need to link our vma into the same
> > > > address_space, with consistent vma->vm_pgoff. ->pgoff is already
> > > > adjusted, because that's how (io_)remap_pfn_range works, but for the
> > > > mapping we need to adjust vma->vm_file->f_mapping. Usually that's done
> > > > at ->open time, but that's a bit tricky here with all the entry points
> > > > and arch code. So instead create a fake file and adjust vma->vm_file.
> > >
> > > I don't think you want to share the devmem inode for this, this should
> > > be based off the sysfs inode which I believe there is already only one
> > > instance per resource. In contrast /dev/mem can have multiple inodes
> > > because anyone can just mknod a new character device file, the same
> > > problem does not exist for sysfs.
> >
> > But then I need to find the right one, plus I also need to find the
> > right one for the procfs side. That gets messy, and I already have no
> > idea how to really test this. Shared address_space is the same trick
> > we're using in drm (where we have multiple things all pointing to the
> > same underlying resources, through different files), and it gets the
> > job done. So that's why I figured the shared address_space is the
> > cleaner solution since then unmap_mapping_range takes care of
> > iterating over all vma for us. I guess I could reimplement that logic
> > with our own locking and everything in revoke_devmem, but feels a bit
> > silly. But it would also solve the problem of having mutliple
> > different mknod of /dev/kmem with different address_space behind them.
> > Also because of how remap_pfn_range works, all these vma do use the
> > same pgoff already anyway.
>
> True, remap_pfn_range() makes sure that ->pgoff is an absolute
> physical address offset for all use cases. So you might be able to
> just point proc_bus_pci_open() at the shared devmem address space. For
> sysfs it's messier. I think you would need to somehow get the inode
> from kernfs_fop_open() to adjust its address space, but only if the
> bin_file will ultimately be used for PCI memory.

To me this seems like a new sysfs_create_bin_file() flavor that
registers the file with the common devmem address_space.