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: <20201021085655.1192025-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20201021085655.1192025-13-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20201021125030.GK36674@ziepe.ca>
 <CAKMK7uEWe8CaT7zjcZ6dJAKHxtxtqzjVB35fCFviwhcnqksDfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201021151352.GL36674@ziepe.ca> <CAKMK7uGq0=ks7Zj1Et44k7x9FwE9u_ua4zANSqrLRri0v01V+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201021163702.GM36674@ziepe.ca> <CAKMK7uEjE5sHUq0hV_bnYjPKRxYyBnty0sLre+owANGZjLJg9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201021232022.GN36674@ziepe.ca> <CAKMK7uEkAK42+19KRo06XzJFuMCVriEEg0jxqXq8oAdt2ExLsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201022114345.GO36674@ziepe.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20201022114345.GO36674@ziepe.ca>
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:04:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uHUufuyCXF5jUZG1zZ8SeaAFOi-9dA1sejc2R5fnLTJVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/16] PCI: Obey iomem restrictions for procfs mmap
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
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>,
        "open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        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>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 1:43 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 09:00:44AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 1:20 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 09:24:08PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 6:37 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 05:54:54PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The trouble is that io_remap_pfn adjust vma->pgoff, so we'd need to
> > > > > > split that. So ideally ->mmap would never set up any ptes.
> > > > >
> > > > > /dev/mem makes pgoff == pfn so it doesn't get changed by remap.
> > > > >
> > > > > pgoff doesn't get touched for MAP_SHARED either, so there are other
> > > > > users that could work like this - eg anyone mmaping IO memory is
> > > > > probably OK.
> > > >
> > > > I was more generally thinking for io_remap_pfn_users because of the
> > > > mkwrite use-case we might have in fbdev emulation in drm.
> > >
> > > You have a use case for MAP_PRIVATE and io_remap_pfn_range()??
> >
> > Uh no :-)
>
> So it is fine, the pgoff mangling only happens for MAP_PRIVATE

Ah right I got confused, thanks for clarifying.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch