Re: [PATCH] udevadm-info: Don't access sysfs 'resource<N>' files

[Myron Stowe <mstowe@redhat.com>]

On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 18:03 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 05:50:53PM -0600, Myron Stowe wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 15:11 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 03:35:19PM -0600, Myron Stowe wrote:
> > > > Sysfs includes entries to memory that backs a PCI device's BARs, both I/O
> > > > Port space and MMIO.  This memory regions correspond to the device's
> > > > internal status and control registers used to drive the device.
> > > > 
> > > > Accessing these registers from userspace such as "udevadm info
> > > > --attribute-walk --path=/sys/devices/..." does can not be allowed as
> > > > such accesses outside of the driver, even just reading, can yield
> > > > catastrophic consequences.
> > > > 
> > > > Udevadm-info skips parsing a specific set of sysfs entries including
> > > > 'resource'.  This patch extends the set to include the additional
> > > > 'resource<N>' entries that correspond to a PCI device's BARs.
> > > 
> > > Nice, are you also going to patch bash to prevent a user from reading
> > > these sysfs files as well?  :)
> > > 
> > > And pciutils?
> > > 
> > > You get my point here, right?  The root user just asked to read all of
> > > the data for this device, so why wouldn't you allow it?  Just like
> > > 'lspci' does.  Or bash does.
> > 
> > Yes :P , you raise a very good point, there are a lot of way a user can
> > poke around in those BARs.  However, there is a difference between
> > shooting yourself in the foot and getting what you deserve versus
> > unknowingly executing a common command such as udevadm and having the
> > system hang.
> > > 
> > > If this hardware has a problem, then it needs to be fixed in the kernel,
> > > not have random band-aids added to various userspace programs to paper
> > > over the root problem here.  Please fix the kernel driver and all should
> > > be fine.  No need to change udevadm.
> > 
> > Xiangliang initially proposed a patch within the PCI core.  Ignoring the
> > specific issue with the proposal which I pointed out in the
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/7/242 thread, that just doesn't seem like
> > the right place to effect a change either as PCI's core isn't concerned
> > with the contents or access limitations of those regions, those are
> > issues that the driver concerns itself with.
> > 
> > So things seem to be gravitating towards the driver.  I'm fairly
> > ignorant of this area but as Robert succinctly pointed out in the
> > originating thread - the AHCI driver only uses the device's MMIO region.
> > The I/O related regions are for legacy SFF-compatible ATA ports and are
> > not used to driver the device.  This, coupled with the observance that
> > userspace accesses such as udevadm, and others like you additionally
> > point out, do not filter through the device's driver for seems to
> > suggest that changes to the driver will not help here either.
> 
> A PCI quirk should handle this properly, right?  Why not do that?  Worse
> thing, the quirk could just not expose these sysfs files for this
> device, which would solve all userspace program issues, right?

The quirk you are suggesting would basically have to be a reversion of
commit 8633328 for the reasons that Bjorn pointed out so that we cover
all devices, not just this one particular device:
        We could put a quirk in the kernel for this device (obviously
        the
        issue is independent of whether the driver is loaded), but no
        doubt
        other devices with I/O BARs will have access size restrictions,
        side
        effects, or other issues.  Adding quirks for them feels like a
        never-ending job.

I'm beginning to think that people have not read the analysis which was
the first mail entry of this thread (I meant for the Subject: to read
"PATCH 0/1] ...) which is at https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/16/168

It appears [*] that we are exposed to this potential conflict with
*every* PCI device's resource# files; not just this one particular
device (again see the analysis cover email, especially the three
paragraphs starting with "Putting together...").

[*] I carefully use the word "appears" due to the one aspect of this
whole issue that I still do not understand which I also expressed in the
cover - which is immediately below the section I just pointed out above.


So what I'd like to understand and why we are focusing on this one
particular instance/device when we *appear* to be at risk with all
devices and their resource# files?

Myron
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h