# Re: \[PATCH v4 11/15\] pci: Add pci\_iomap\_shared{,\_range}

- From: Andi Kleen \<hidden\>
- Date: 2021-08-31 00:23:23 
- List: linux-alpha
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-alpha/2021/08/1492792
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-pci/2021/08/1468282/t.md

```text

On 8/30/2021 1:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
>> Or we can add _audited to the name. ioremap_shared_audited?
> But it's not the mapping that has to be done in handled special way.
> It's any data we get from device, not all of it coming from IO, e.g.
> there's DMA and interrupts that all have to be validated.
> Wouldn't you say that what is really wanted is just not running
> unaudited drivers in the first place?


Yes.


>
>> And we've been avoiding that drivers can self declare auditing, we've been
>> trying to have a separate centralized list so that it's easier to enforce
>> and avoids any cut'n'paste mistakes.
>>
>> -Andi
> Now I'm confused. What is proposed here seems to be basically that,
> drivers need to declare auditing by replacing ioremap with
> ioremap_shared.

Auditing is declared on the device model level using a central allow list.

But this cannot do anything to initcalls that run before probe, that's why an extra level of defense of ioremap opt-in is useful. But it's not the primary mechanism to declare a driver audited, that's the allow list. The ioremap is just another mechanism to avoid having to touch a lot of legacy drivers.

If we agree on that then the original proposed semantics of "ioremap_shared" may be acceptable?

-Andi



```