[PATCH v2 11/17] vfio/type1: Mark follow_pfn as unsafe

[Daniel Vetter]

The code seems to stuff these pfns into iommu pts (or something like
that, I didn't follow), but there's no mmu_notifier to ensure that
access is synchronized with pte updates.

Hence mark these as unsafe. This means that with
CONFIG_STRICT_FOLLOW_PFN, these will be rejected.

Real fix is to wire up an mmu_notifier ... somehow. Probably means any
invalidate is a fatal fault for this vfio device, but then this
shouldn't ever happen if userspace is reasonable.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
 drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
index 5fbf0c1f7433..a4d53f3d0a35 100644
--- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
+++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
@@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ static int follow_fault_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm,
 {
 	int ret;
 
-	ret = follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
+	ret = unsafe_follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
 	if (ret) {
 		bool unlocked = false;
 
@@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static int follow_fault_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm,
 		if (ret)
 			return ret;
 
-		ret = follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
+		ret = unsafe_follow_pfn(vma, vaddr, pfn);
 	}
 
 	return ret;
-- 
2.28.0