From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E73C433F5 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:19:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237152AbhLMNTu (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:19:50 -0500 Received: from mo4-p01-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([85.215.255.51]:27711 "EHLO mo4-p01-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233448AbhLMNTu (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:19:50 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1639401582; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=gerhold.net; h=In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Cc:Date: From:Subject:Sender; bh=oXVz7j6O/sdvqTEmJzhaOnnNzeCFuCaYipshwhsdL/Q=; b=BCQNJer+iBZnxYMyTRXMMbQrkgmxAC1RqtoT3/g9wCPqC+c7cHTtDqAclvXOZUwGgP qcvxWtN5OE7qeBtN8fSMnwIdw6EjF/FJfYrJo723/1aD4HO4Us9AktnXT5W1/jAjsSL3 IbIpIHOUob281s5DXg93H22UTpHO23kbfyfyFoL6n525Ogkte1GW9f8QovS4XZOMPmju 7HuzzUpLuJKS8sG3Re0JFP5uOzUl8QYv4Hj2gBYac74oYuuhYUube0GWFhYRXaCQhDh4 LJqJL4qU3rtDONERW3/jc20za0b3eEDUI959TJoRcv9iHBrfQq6X5oQEula8O3Ozr+Kj aIPg== Authentication-Results: strato.com; dkim=none X-RZG-AUTH: ":P3gBZUipdd93FF5ZZvYFPugejmSTVR2nRPhVOQ/OcYgojyw4j34+u267FZF9PwpcNKLVrKw5+aY=" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from gerhold.net by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 47.35.3 SBL|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id j080d2xBDDJgK7d (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate); Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:19:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:19:38 +0100 From: Stephan Gerhold To: Srinivas Kandagatla Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, ekangupt@qti.qualcomm.com, jeyr@codeaurora.org, bkumar@qti.qualcomm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] dt-bindings: misc: add property to support non-secure DSP Message-ID: References: <20211209120626.26373-1-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <20211209120626.26373-6-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 12:35:40PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > On 13/12/2021 10:57, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 12:06:23PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > > > From: Jeya R > > > > > > Add property to set DSP domain as non-secure. > > > > > > ADSP/MDSP/SDSP are by default secured, where as CDSP can be either be > > > secured/unsecured. > > > > Wouldn't it be easier to avoid the negation and add a "qcom,secure-domain" > > property instead? Given PATCH 8/8 ("arm64: dts: qcom: add non-secure > > domain property to fastrpc nodes") it looks like you are intentionally > > breaking DT compatibility here, but this patch does not justify why this > > is necessary. > > By default all ADSP/MDSP/SDSP are secured, so this property is only required > for something that is not default. Only case that is configurable is the > CDSP case where in by adding this flag we should be able to load an unsigned > process to dsp using unsecured node. > > Having said that, TBH When we first added the fastrpc patchset we did not > take care of this security feature properly :-) > > From security point of view, its better to keep the default as secured > rather than unsecured in DT too. > > With this DTS patch older dts should continue to work. > Is this a "default" on newer platforms only? Why do the existing platforms not use the "secure" setup then? Or is this perhaps firmware version/configuration specific? Basically I'm confused because you say that the "default" is the secured setup, but DT patch (8/8) suggests that non-secure is the default on pretty much all currently supported platforms (msm8916, sdm845, sm8150, sm8250, sm8350). :) Thanks, Stephan