From: Ravi Kumar Bandi <ravib@amazon.com>
To: <djbw@kernel.org>
Cc: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <bhelgaas@google.com>,
<david@kernel.org>, <hch@infradead.org>,
<ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<ravib@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] resource: export iomem_get_mapping() for loadable modules
Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 15:54:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260514155405.7998-1-ravib@amazon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6a04c6ba958b2_107b100f9@djbw-dev.notmuch>
On 5/13/26, Dan Williams (nvidia) wrote:
> I took a look and there are some problems here.
>
> My first thought was, "why does the endpoint driver need to do this? The
> PCI core device removal should be responsible for zapping mappings."
>
> 2 things defeat this:
>
> 1/ for sysfs bar mappings, the unmap_mapping_range() in
> kernfs_drain_open_files() misses mappings established against
> the shared iomem_get_mapping().
>
> 2/ procfs access to BAR space has never unmapped on device removal
>
> The practical implication of this is that userspace mappings of BARs can
> survive past device removal. As for mitigations, with IO_STRICT_DEVMEM
> the kernel will zap them before use, with LOCKDOWN the mappings can not
> be established, and CAP_SYS_RAWIO is required (for procfs) to create
> these mappings.
Hello Dan, thank you for the review and guidance.
>
> I recall that Sima added support for ioport mmap revoke support in:
>
> 636b21b50152 PCI: Revoke mappings like devmem
>
> ...but given revoke_iomem() only evacuates at request_mem_region() time,
> I do not see how that ever worked.
>
> We could do something like the following for kernfs regression in the
> near term, or just proceed with making revoke_iomem() something that the
> PCI core does unconditionally by physical address on device removal.
> That would also fix the procfs gap.
>
> Ravi, I think your time is best spent getting the PCI core to handle the
> unmap on device removal.
Agree. Thank you for the pointers, I will work on it and get back here.
>
> -- >8 --
> Subject: resource: Fix PCI/sysfs mmap revocation vs CONFIG_IO_STRICT_DEVMEM=n
>
> From: Dan Williams <djbw@kernel.org>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-14 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-11 6:56 [PATCH] resource: export iomem_get_mapping() for loadable modules Ravi Kumar Bandi
2026-05-11 7:14 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-05-11 7:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-05-11 16:16 ` Ravi Kumar Bandi
2026-05-12 7:10 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-05-12 7:31 ` Ravi Kumar Bandi
2026-05-12 7:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-05-12 7:50 ` Ravi Kumar Bandi
2026-05-13 18:45 ` Dan Williams (nvidia)
2026-05-14 15:54 ` Ravi Kumar Bandi [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260514155405.7998-1-ravib@amazon.com \
--to=ravib@amazon.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=djbw@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox