Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:16a7:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id gp39csp844805pxb; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 14:12:41 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwfZ05NY5OA7Bog0XrJYjPSfh4KtHSI5PUI3Z2e+i73TE7L9SbuE624Tq/qNaYT2y140i36 X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3641:: with SMTP id r1mr21301953ejb.405.1604441561178; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 14:12:41 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1604441561; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=aTvtSL0I+/UOcUcOCN1pbB8JWDmOPxL4EILGZITSCpg488+Y8j5OKeEyiiOB5VOB3p 9cP4cWyp+AEkWrsKoC963NQW1kVLNw6sW80P81dbxaqNEVMmykv4W+rqacntEqX4m9KO oqhzpjL6t74N2g9MRDxMNKf29BJD/5FnVb2P3NJBKRg9TrvE0Imbfb2bo6kUHADIEioD jd4v4B2ydkhJAryr9Pr4ZAJWXAYis3InJP01nc6JCogvWyC2dxMCdvNGkGkBUXdgowf0 41uEcnKiV5+Y/WygzXdv9QZFO+tHqzGNe5Z1F9rGYYJM5MXdTwAwXCTpzuYgY/T3vID4 k00w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=WO1e+L++wPESWfr9nzOE54SCt7afrEsmsB9fEuoYvbI=; b=JdnmdZ6X1dcoIpJg1qVU0VA4WY8K9UF9ELPQNXlG8ijBZjh5DctOVMUSLlE4+KPlRE VK7A1B59sg0NHxmnoD4PnQpdg95p4nOSjnVbWgrAi7r0iG5/iNTwHoSDPl3NSzoSHXnE bEl57jKpLn8GWyRi2P8uUi1CXdssax3PY9edPjlbL60/kdUT7nzybfFCoMK4NgAr00ol iuCvN+IEzGPT+Wivx2NQ3+kyRKHklaQxIrWmoZ9pU7ZfSgTXrz+s7B8iCTM7BigtSGLM gxwV3O+8u1QM/MX7fUfgDDfCS8qSrxwvnw3yMcmaobEVHi38vd4ISKTKQMuaPQKqNCLl QJEw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b="T+/A6+J6"; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id co16si14207030edb.465.2020.11.03.14.12.18; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 14:12:41 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b="T+/A6+J6"; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731578AbgKCWJu (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:09:50 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34744 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730418AbgKCWJs (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:09:48 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x541.google.com (mail-ed1-x541.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::541]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D82F9C0613D1 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 14:09:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x541.google.com with SMTP id o18so20225668edq.4 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 14:09:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WO1e+L++wPESWfr9nzOE54SCt7afrEsmsB9fEuoYvbI=; b=T+/A6+J62VDvQMKYPtVg2CtBW5xawhHVZqWOERIyixTczN4MfytqxhoJQJOcs2790L sj4ZJgiKijp3n63RZQtMlQ3es9rYo1weSDlwxcJm5Ag+lH4tps5I28z8LxvfwKmYtzJJ /7ODS6RyMh7GrhkYAYzKWrZUgtjo08ShY2d8lFIlqSiQY56zEC4lJ332rH1cpQ0Jikk9 7t5YiToX4pGXA3cBIa8hr/lWANYeeU9HgWErCB0IiUFAAt6bSVSfurD3RBJy3BliIelp YL3WFMt/TsTNhYtMeHyiS4JaRXQkTDS7Em1++6Jk3gmVGF0kwFa501K00ou4nDd0zP9v pO8w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WO1e+L++wPESWfr9nzOE54SCt7afrEsmsB9fEuoYvbI=; b=uOUdHUg1qYnn5nOFek+pXFmAG65OY/z5YEGLD3RaQgud9C5XrDipx8qUOmjcLd7atW lD++jdJZEVFsX4iEJjoCVOtZ3Mzi928jIR0NeDQOFNPuQB2GFwtgxBFlwkkBn+kRQBws eOl0aZc4XbWQigfBXWB++E3IaT95WeRcZSIDQVA00DPWAFoY92Azz7SFhy+QUY75Ay7g stTdlRK0F3iW+HeRElIwyCLNdAVYO12xoIR2YC0yml2mNbr9g0WtilFiIQ+ZAj3yt19l B0GLzLWvRIm0mzJAx7x0ZaeZZ7Jz3c4uoUshXdYHIrTqTBoDlwDDS28lSgANrbRaiDrv D9yw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530+ltsTKR1v+pdEzayEnBFnp5XoQrB8r5p2On5pps0tzHgbSxsX lTINl+vvNVuWyOJqyGoZok0+qKrg3hezVzLY8zs7tg== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d843:: with SMTP id f3mr24583081eds.354.1604441386651; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 14:09:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201030100815.2269-12-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20201103212840.GA266427@bjorn-Precision-5520> In-Reply-To: <20201103212840.GA266427@bjorn-Precision-5520> From: Dan Williams Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 14:09:35 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/15] PCI: Obey iomem restrictions for procfs mmap To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Daniel Vetter , DRI Development , LKML , KVM list , Linux MM , Linux ARM , linux-samsung-soc , "Linux-media@vger.kernel.org" , Daniel Vetter , Jason Gunthorpe , Kees Cook , Andrew Morton , John Hubbard , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= , Jan Kara , Bjorn Helgaas , Linux PCI Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:28 PM Bjorn Helgaas 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 > > 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.