Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755606AbYJBWYr (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:24:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753652AbYJBWYh (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:24:37 -0400 Received: from outbound-mail-129.bluehost.com ([67.222.38.29]:37384 "HELO outbound-mail-129.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753580AbYJBWYg (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:24:36 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id:X-Identified-User; b=Gdn7WlHRO1+rUUhh0wiMsgmpmponSVqgP0RzoWCICGtvKbRqeBKb5ndPHWKx4PHOlROacmE1uhKNK3egcelYkA3JgTeeCKY5v7qvSM0zmeAp620SW/wB9FBEXQQBoNsC; From: Jesse Barnes To: Jesse Brandeburg Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, David Miller wrote: Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:23:43 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-netdev@vger.kernel.org, kkeil@suse.de, agospoda@redhat.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, david.graham@intel.com, bruce.w.allan@intel.com, jkosina@suse.cz, john.ronciak@intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, chris.jones@canonical.com, tim.gardner@intel.com, airlied@gmail.com References: <20080930030825.22950.18891.stgit@jbrandeb-bw.jf.intel.com> <20080930031927.22950.4692.stgit@jbrandeb-bw.jf.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20080930031927.22950.4692.stgit@jbrandeb-bw.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810021523.45884.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> X-Identified-User: {642:box128.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.111.27.49 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3444 Lines: 92 Ping DaveM. Does this look ok? What else would we need for you to remove your range checking from sparc? Thanks, Jesse On Monday, September 29, 2008 8:19 pm Jesse Brandeburg wrote: > From: Jesse Barnes > > > I did some snooping around, and while doing so I noticed that the PCI > > mmap code for x86 doesn't do one bit of range checking on the size, or > > any other aspect of the request, wrt. the MMIO regions actually mapped > > in the BARs of the PCI device. > > Here's a patch that adds range checking to the sysfs mappings at > least. This patch should catch the case where X (or some other > process) tries to map beyond the specific BAR it's (supposedly) > trying to access, making things safer in general. FWIW both my > F9 and development versions of X start up fine with this patch > applied. > > DaveM, will this work for you on sparc? It looked like your code > was allowing bridge window mappings, but that behavior should be > preserved as long as your bridge devices reflect their window > sizes correctly in their pdev->resources? > > If we add similar code to the procfs stuff we wouldn't need to do > any checking in the arches. > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes > Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg > --- > > drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c > index 9c71858..4d1aa6e 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ > > > #include > +#include > #include > #include > #include > @@ -502,6 +503,8 @@ pci_mmap_resource(struct kobject *kobj, struct > bin_attribute *attr, struct resource *res = (struct resource > *)attr->private; > enum pci_mmap_state mmap_type; > resource_size_t start, end; > + unsigned long map_len = vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start; > + unsigned long map_offset = vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT; > int i; > > for (i = 0; i < PCI_ROM_RESOURCE; i++) > @@ -510,6 +513,17 @@ pci_mmap_resource(struct kobject *kobj, struct > bin_attribute *attr, if (i >= PCI_ROM_RESOURCE) > return -ENODEV; > > + /* > + * Make sure the range the user is trying to map falls within > + * the resource > + */ > + if (map_offset + map_len > pci_resource_len(pdev, i)) { > + WARN(1, "process \"%s\" tried to map 0x%08lx-0x%08lx on BAR %d (size > 0x%08lx)\n", + current->comm, map_offset, map_offset + map_len, i, > + (unsigned long)pci_resource_len(pdev, i)); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > /* pci_mmap_page_range() expects the same kind of entry as coming > * from /proc/bus/pci/ which is a "user visible" value. If this is > * different from the resource itself, arch will do necessary fixup. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/