All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>
Cc: Etienne CARRIERE <etienne.carriere@st.com>,
	Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	OP-TEE TrustedFirmware <op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jerome Forissier <jerome@forissier.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Asynchronous notifications from secure world
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 08:50:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210720075036.z2a5lcguu3xp3wqi@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHUa44G2xLn9td88H-n9E3yJ6JUnyGL4vZNj0rwisu2ArngYAw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 08:45:59AM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:12 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 08:05:57AM +0000, Etienne CARRIERE wrote:
> > > Hello Sudeep and all,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 19:52, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Sumit,
> > > >
> > > > I was holding off you reply as I didn't have all the background on this.
> > > > Achin did mention that this is preparatory work for FFA notifications.
> > > > I did mention to him that this is more than that, it is custom extension
> > > > to address what FF-A notification is trying to in standard way.
>
> Are you suggesting that we should use a hybrid implementation with
> FF-A for notifications and keep the rest as is for armv7-a?
>

No I was just mentioning that this patch series addresses notifications from
secure world(optee in this case) which is very similar to what FF-A is trying
to address too.

Anyways, you brought up interesting idea of hybrid model, it would be good if
that is possible and the specification allows for that. I don't think it does
in the current form, may need some amendments to allow that I think.

> > > >
> > > > I share same opinion as Marc Z.
>
> From what I've read in this thread this has mainly been about using
> SGI notification and not whether asynchronous notification from OP-TEE
> on non-FF-A systems is good or bad. I assume Sumit was asking about
> SGI to find out why that wasn't used. This patch set uses SPI.
>

I understand. I was trying(ineffectively) to tell why it is not so trivial
to use SGI and how FF-A is enabling that.

On SPI, so it is expected that platform has SPI available for this ?

> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:22:23AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 18:16, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't care about OP-TEE. If you are proposing a contract between S
> > > > > > and NS, it has to be TEE and OS independent. That's how the
> > > > > > architecture works.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree, here we are not proposing a common contract among the S and NS
> > > > > world that every TEE (based on Arm TrustZone) will use to communicate
> > > > > with REE (Linux in our case) but rather an OP-TEE specific
> > > > > notifications feature that is built on top of OP-TEE specific ABIs.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I can see your arguments coming from an FFA perspective but there
> > > > > are platforms like the ones based on Armv7 which don't support FFA
> > > > > ABI. Maybe Jens can elaborate how this feature will fit in when FFA
> > > > > comes into picture?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I can understand that but won't those platforms add the support both in
> > > > the kernel(current series) and secure world to address notifications.
> > > > While you could argue that it is small extension to what is already present
> > > > but I prefer they support FF-A is they need such a support instead of adding
> > > > custom mechanisms. It is hard to maintain and each vendor will deviate
> > > > from this custom mechanism and soon we will have bunch of them to handle.
>
> Regarding deviation, are we still talking about the OP-TEE driver? So
> far I haven't seen any vendor extensions at all in that driver.
>

Yes, I was referring to addition of notification support in both worlds.
I was trying to emphasize that both OPTEE and FF-A needs changes in the
secure world. OPTEE changes could be small compared to starting with FF-A
but it may result in deviation in notification hadling(in both worlds).

> > >
> > > There exist armv7-a platforms that expect OP-TEE notification support and
> > > will not move the FF-A, like the stm32mp15. This platform won't move to FF-A
> > > mainly due to the memory cost of the added SPM layer and the device physical
> > > constraints.
> >
> > Fair enough on the use-case and the analysis for not being able to use FF-A.
> > As you may already know it doesn't simply this problem. This has been
> > discussed for years and FF-A was assumed to be the solution when FF-A
> > spec work started.
> >
> > > We have a usecase for OP-TEE notification. We're working on the integration
> > > of an SCMI server in OP-TEE. SCMI notification is a feature needed is this
> > > scope and it requires OP-TEE async notification means as those proposed
> > > here.
> > >
> >
> > I am aware of this use-case, I understand. But I can only share rants
> > which I know doesn't help much.
> >
> > > This OP-TEE async notif also brings a lot of value in OP-TEE as it allows a
> > > OP-TEE secure thread (i.e. executing a trusted application service) to
> > > gently wait on a secure interrupt (as a slow bus transaction completion or
> > > many other usecase) with the CPU relaxed. This support is provided by the
> > > proposed series. I believe existing device should be able to leverage this
> > > OP-TEE feature without needing their OP-TEE to move to the new FF-A
> > > interface.
> > >
> >
> > While I agree these are nice to have in OPTEE, the timing is just odd.
> >
> > We are trying hard to push FF-A as standard solution to address all such
> > issues that couldn't be solved with OPTEE + DT, now we are back to address
> > the same in parallel to FF-A.
>
> It's not exactly the same since the primary target here is armv7-a
> where introducing FF-A isn't an obvious choice in all cases. For
> OP-TEE armv7-a is special in the way that all secure world processing
> is handled by OP-TEE. The internal secure monitor already takes care
> of what's implemented in TF-A at EL3 for armv8-a.
>

Fair enough.

> This isn't meant to compete with FF-A, it's to make sure that the
> OP-TEE armv7-a user base isn't left behind. This doesn't rule out FF-A
> support for armv7-a for those prepared to take that step.
>

Sure, as long as that is conveyed to the adopters of this, it should be
fine. Do you have plans to disable this feature for armv8-a ? I see that
as safe approach to avoid any kind of conflicts.

I just don't want similar arguments used as excuse on armv8-a.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>
Cc: Etienne CARRIERE <etienne.carriere@st.com>,
	Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	OP-TEE TrustedFirmware <op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jerome Forissier <jerome@forissier.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Asynchronous notifications from secure world
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 08:50:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210720075036.z2a5lcguu3xp3wqi@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHUa44G2xLn9td88H-n9E3yJ6JUnyGL4vZNj0rwisu2ArngYAw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 08:45:59AM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:12 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 08:05:57AM +0000, Etienne CARRIERE wrote:
> > > Hello Sudeep and all,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 19:52, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Sumit,
> > > >
> > > > I was holding off you reply as I didn't have all the background on this.
> > > > Achin did mention that this is preparatory work for FFA notifications.
> > > > I did mention to him that this is more than that, it is custom extension
> > > > to address what FF-A notification is trying to in standard way.
>
> Are you suggesting that we should use a hybrid implementation with
> FF-A for notifications and keep the rest as is for armv7-a?
>

No I was just mentioning that this patch series addresses notifications from
secure world(optee in this case) which is very similar to what FF-A is trying
to address too.

Anyways, you brought up interesting idea of hybrid model, it would be good if
that is possible and the specification allows for that. I don't think it does
in the current form, may need some amendments to allow that I think.

> > > >
> > > > I share same opinion as Marc Z.
>
> From what I've read in this thread this has mainly been about using
> SGI notification and not whether asynchronous notification from OP-TEE
> on non-FF-A systems is good or bad. I assume Sumit was asking about
> SGI to find out why that wasn't used. This patch set uses SPI.
>

I understand. I was trying(ineffectively) to tell why it is not so trivial
to use SGI and how FF-A is enabling that.

On SPI, so it is expected that platform has SPI available for this ?

> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:22:23AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 18:16, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't care about OP-TEE. If you are proposing a contract between S
> > > > > > and NS, it has to be TEE and OS independent. That's how the
> > > > > > architecture works.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree, here we are not proposing a common contract among the S and NS
> > > > > world that every TEE (based on Arm TrustZone) will use to communicate
> > > > > with REE (Linux in our case) but rather an OP-TEE specific
> > > > > notifications feature that is built on top of OP-TEE specific ABIs.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I can see your arguments coming from an FFA perspective but there
> > > > > are platforms like the ones based on Armv7 which don't support FFA
> > > > > ABI. Maybe Jens can elaborate how this feature will fit in when FFA
> > > > > comes into picture?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I can understand that but won't those platforms add the support both in
> > > > the kernel(current series) and secure world to address notifications.
> > > > While you could argue that it is small extension to what is already present
> > > > but I prefer they support FF-A is they need such a support instead of adding
> > > > custom mechanisms. It is hard to maintain and each vendor will deviate
> > > > from this custom mechanism and soon we will have bunch of them to handle.
>
> Regarding deviation, are we still talking about the OP-TEE driver? So
> far I haven't seen any vendor extensions at all in that driver.
>

Yes, I was referring to addition of notification support in both worlds.
I was trying to emphasize that both OPTEE and FF-A needs changes in the
secure world. OPTEE changes could be small compared to starting with FF-A
but it may result in deviation in notification hadling(in both worlds).

> > >
> > > There exist armv7-a platforms that expect OP-TEE notification support and
> > > will not move the FF-A, like the stm32mp15. This platform won't move to FF-A
> > > mainly due to the memory cost of the added SPM layer and the device physical
> > > constraints.
> >
> > Fair enough on the use-case and the analysis for not being able to use FF-A.
> > As you may already know it doesn't simply this problem. This has been
> > discussed for years and FF-A was assumed to be the solution when FF-A
> > spec work started.
> >
> > > We have a usecase for OP-TEE notification. We're working on the integration
> > > of an SCMI server in OP-TEE. SCMI notification is a feature needed is this
> > > scope and it requires OP-TEE async notification means as those proposed
> > > here.
> > >
> >
> > I am aware of this use-case, I understand. But I can only share rants
> > which I know doesn't help much.
> >
> > > This OP-TEE async notif also brings a lot of value in OP-TEE as it allows a
> > > OP-TEE secure thread (i.e. executing a trusted application service) to
> > > gently wait on a secure interrupt (as a slow bus transaction completion or
> > > many other usecase) with the CPU relaxed. This support is provided by the
> > > proposed series. I believe existing device should be able to leverage this
> > > OP-TEE feature without needing their OP-TEE to move to the new FF-A
> > > interface.
> > >
> >
> > While I agree these are nice to have in OPTEE, the timing is just odd.
> >
> > We are trying hard to push FF-A as standard solution to address all such
> > issues that couldn't be solved with OPTEE + DT, now we are back to address
> > the same in parallel to FF-A.
>
> It's not exactly the same since the primary target here is armv7-a
> where introducing FF-A isn't an obvious choice in all cases. For
> OP-TEE armv7-a is special in the way that all secure world processing
> is handled by OP-TEE. The internal secure monitor already takes care
> of what's implemented in TF-A at EL3 for armv8-a.
>

Fair enough.

> This isn't meant to compete with FF-A, it's to make sure that the
> OP-TEE armv7-a user base isn't left behind. This doesn't rule out FF-A
> support for armv7-a for those prepared to take that step.
>

Sure, as long as that is conveyed to the adopters of this, it should be
fine. Do you have plans to disable this feature for armv8-a ? I see that
as safe approach to avoid any kind of conflicts.

I just don't want similar arguments used as excuse on armv8-a.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-20  7:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-09  8:05 Etienne CARRIERE
2021-07-13 11:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2021-07-13 11:11   ` Sudeep Holla
2021-07-20  6:45   ` Jens Wiklander
2021-07-20  6:45     ` Jens Wiklander
2021-07-20  7:50     ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2021-07-20  7:50       ` Sudeep Holla
2021-07-20  9:59       ` Jens Wiklander
2021-07-20  9:59         ` Jens Wiklander
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-06-16 10:36 Jens Wiklander
2021-06-16 10:36 ` Jens Wiklander
2021-06-17  4:33 ` Sumit Garg
2021-06-17  4:33   ` Sumit Garg
2021-06-17  6:10   ` Jens Wiklander
2021-06-17  6:10     ` Jens Wiklander
2021-07-06  7:25     ` Sumit Garg
2021-07-06  7:25       ` Sumit Garg
2021-07-06 10:36       ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-06 10:36         ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-06 11:39         ` Sumit Garg
2021-07-06 11:39           ` Sumit Garg
2021-07-06 12:46           ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-06 12:46             ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-07  5:52             ` Sumit Garg
2021-07-07  5:52               ` Sumit Garg
2021-07-07  6:54               ` Jens Wiklander
2021-07-07  6:54                 ` Jens Wiklander
2021-07-07 17:51               ` Sudeep Holla
2021-07-07 17:51                 ` Sudeep Holla
2021-07-08 12:56                 ` Sumit Garg
2021-07-08 12:56                   ` Sumit Garg

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=20210720075036.z2a5lcguu3xp3wqi@bogus \
    --to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=etienne.carriere@linaro.org \
    --cc=etienne.carriere@st.com \
    --cc=jens.wiklander@linaro.org \
    --cc=jerome@forissier.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=sumit.garg@linaro.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Asynchronous notifications from secure world' \
    /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

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.