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;
Date:   Thu, 5 Nov 2020 10:34:09 +0100
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        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>,
        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>,
        =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/15] PCI: Obey iomem restrictions for procfs mmap
Message-ID: <20201105093409.GR401619@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
        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>,
        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>,
        =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
References: <CAKMK7uF0QjesaNs97N-G8cZkXuAmFgcmTfHvoCP94br_WVcV6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201104165017.GA352206@bjorn-Precision-5520>
 <CAPcyv4idORJzHVD2vCOnO3REqWHKVn_-otOzTBf0HhcWq4iJRQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4idORJzHVD2vCOnO3REqWHKVn_-otOzTBf0HhcWq4iJRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 12:12:15PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 8:50 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:28 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.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@intel.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.
> 
> It seems a bug that the kernel permits MMIO regions with side effects
> to be ioremap()'ed without request_mem_region() on the resource. I
> wonder how much log spam would happen if ioremap() reported whenever a
> non-IORESOURE_BUSY range was passed to it? The current state of
> affairs to trust *remap users to have claimed their remap target seems
> too ingrained to unwind now.

Yeah I think that's hopeless. I think the only feasible approach is if bus
drivers claim resources by default when a driver is bound (it should nest,
so if the driver claims again, I think that should all keep working), just
using the driver name. Probably with some special casing for legacy io
(vgaarb.c should claim these I guess). Still probably tons of fallout.

Once that's rolled out to all bus drivers we could perhaps add the ioremap
check without drowning in log spam. Still a multi-year project I think :-/
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch