Re: [PATCH 2/2] drivers/misc: add transfer ioctl for HPS

From: Greg KH
Date: Fri Jan 28 2022 - 04:36:09 EST


On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 06:42:08PM +1100, Sami Kyostila wrote:
> to 27. tammik. 2022 klo 20.41 Greg KH (gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) kirjoitti:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 07:35:45PM +1100, Sami Kyöstilä wrote:
> > > This patch adds an ioctl operation for sending and receiving data from
> > > the ChromeOS snooping protection sensor (a.k.a., HPS). This allows
> > > userspace programs to perform a combined read/write I2C transaction
> > > through a single syscall.
> > >
> > > The I2C wire protocol for the device is documented at:
> > >
> > > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/hps-firmware/+/
> > > refs/heads/main/docs/host_device_i2c_protocol.md
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sami Kyöstilä <skyostil@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > MAINTAINERS | 1 +
> > > drivers/misc/hps-i2c.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > include/uapi/linux/hps.h | 20 ++++++++++
> > > 3 files changed, 102 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644 include/uapi/linux/hps.h
> > >
> > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > > index 9dea4b8c2ab5..d5fc066fdbc2 100644
> > > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > > @@ -8803,6 +8803,7 @@ M: Sami Kyöstilä <skyostil@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > R: Evan Benn <evanbenn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > S: Maintained
> > > F: drivers/misc/hps-i2c.c
> > > +F: include/uapi/linux/hps.h
> > >
> > > HSI SUBSYSTEM
> > > M: Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/hps-i2c.c b/drivers/misc/hps-i2c.c
> > > index fe9f073b0352..748ead49d678 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/misc/hps-i2c.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/misc/hps-i2c.c
> > > @@ -17,9 +17,11 @@
> > > #include <linux/i2c.h>
> > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> > > +#include <uapi/linux/hps.h>
> > >
> > > #define HPS_ACPI_ID "GOOG0020"
> > > #define HPS_MAX_DEVICES 1
> > > +#define HPS_MAX_MSG_SIZE 8192
> > >
> > > struct hps_drvdata {
> > > struct i2c_client *client;
> > > @@ -60,6 +62,8 @@ static int hps_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> > > ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> > > if (ret < 0)
> > > goto pm_get_fail;
> > > +
> > > + file->private_data = hps->client;
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > pm_get_fail:
> > > @@ -84,10 +88,87 @@ static int hps_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static int hps_do_ioctl_transfer(struct i2c_client *client,
> > > + struct hps_transfer_ioctl_data *args)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > + int nmsg = 0;
> > > + struct i2c_msg msgs[2] = {
> > > + {
> > > + .addr = client->addr,
> > > + .flags = client->flags,
> > > + },
> > > + {
> > > + .addr = client->addr,
> > > + .flags = client->flags,
> > > + },
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + if (args->isize) {
> > > + msgs[nmsg].len = args->isize;
> > > + msgs[nmsg].buf = memdup_user(args->ibuf, args->isize);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(msgs[nmsg].buf)) {
> > > + ret = PTR_ERR(msgs[nmsg].buf);
> > > + goto memdup_fail;
> > > + }
> > > + nmsg++;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (args->osize) {
> > > + msgs[nmsg].len = args->osize;
> > > + msgs[nmsg].buf = memdup_user(args->obuf, args->osize);
> > > + msgs[nmsg].flags |= I2C_M_RD;
> > > + if (IS_ERR(msgs[nmsg].buf)) {
> > > + ret = PTR_ERR(msgs[nmsg].buf);
> > > + goto memdup_fail;
> > > + }
> > > + nmsg++;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + ret = i2c_transfer(client->adapter, &msgs[0], nmsg);
> > > + if (ret > 0 && args->osize) {
> > > + if (copy_to_user(args->obuf, msgs[nmsg - 1].buf, ret))
> > > + ret = -EFAULT;
> > > + }
> >
> > Why can't you just do normal i2c transfers to/from userspace instead of
> > requring a custom ioctl?
>
> The main reason is security: without this driver, in order to talk to
> HPS the userspace daemon needs read/write access to the entire I2C
> controller (e.g., /dev/i2c-0). This means the daemon can also control
> any other I2C device which happens to be on the same bus. With a
> separate ioctl we can limit access to just HPS.

Then use seccomp for this?

> As far as I can tell, there's no way to restrict access on a
> per-device level with normal i2c, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong
> :)

Selinux rules?

What else is on this bus for the device that you care about?

thanks,

greg k-h