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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8AACC48BD1 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 07:18:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEF8613BC for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 07:18:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229980AbhFJHUN (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jun 2021 03:20:13 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34434 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229634AbhFJHUN (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jun 2021 03:20:13 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2964CC061574 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 00:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id n17so3435856ljg.2 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 00:18:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=S5kcCRgSqcTyKNiNJobzPvsYTBfnwg3R0que6HtV/iA=; b=gOyVmQmkTb6Ht4MxUDwsPv+sgfc47kSAG/YUkq2lleF0q/dOq8uSIGGFMyN4q/919a vrJXYZGjINTU2nFw31tmzr7UDTqOrJJz80C+ggrqqVmA5YeKdVS6YnlKCutUlQvN8ys7 PdCttBfPd8Cua8+a9j7SkMwppyzT2wfq2EtsMK0eY5Oy+NN9hQqPBG3uZSm73nZgL1N5 BhVxxVkDqx6eIMkQFiJ16ncU+3RzDLkPJUn6QbS8U+36Vmbnsfum1QLFYtyd33zifNwj 30Pw7cA4+dV2r8vNEYcmfBqHwmgg5NgA5fXbPYR+Pr++yb8uBu3+MmUp3tIUe5ktU+E7 1mQA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=S5kcCRgSqcTyKNiNJobzPvsYTBfnwg3R0que6HtV/iA=; b=JyZ6tkFQlAhIlrwQ904Oyo2hQKCQEdmw1B+WT8EAUtaCWJMF1B2cKIFwo9R9jNKDLO SK8V+XsqvNfNQ6H3Z/kHy2FXQRxkKfFofI/dkSuwNgrpWtjUYrsecUwCs8b0D6iOP1LE 2BzCb23w39Y0raECkOpsMN/9P4gy0/ziTcbmdhVE4Gdy25BAd6kGd/TqUrj0I6Uq4r5K eEEml+y/wiF1uh+OoPllt5dlGP2U6S6OOm+lTLBO3J+VBPafLKJA+HDSkCBdUnlx25ZN bbKDiSJZJw3IUkIjDJsZ5tLwhojiRk+pXlspaA5Uiwhr28ygxgpM8Eb3QT9Hh5AOfDkf u4Ww== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5321v3EQX0HeCLu/DCJznVdITyXaMKf0WxbRNWSY7pJOsRsxQ0An e90tyOAK2imR395MtGZFNA0KyA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyMj9lGwOCH+acQAVtjCYP7GB+omoXpgU6UYPUc+PU0pXjGQscDFQVLqGLZ50u23iwL4TVVSg== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a605:: with SMTP id v5mr1129883ljp.128.1623309494502; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 00:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jade (h-79-136-85-3.A175.priv.bahnhof.se. [79.136.85.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i21sm238059ljb.10.2021.06.10.00.18.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 10 Jun 2021 00:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 09:18:12 +0200 From: Jens Wiklander To: Sumit Garg Cc: Tyler Hicks , Rijo-john.Thomas@amd.com, Allen Pais , Peter Huewe , Jarkko Sakkinen , Jason Gunthorpe , Vikas Gupta , Thirupathaiah Annapureddy , Pavel Tatashin , =?utf-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= , op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, linux-integrity , bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] tee: Support shm registration without dma-buf backing Message-ID: <20210610071812.GA2753553@jade> References: <20210609002326.210024-1-tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com> <20210609002326.210024-6-tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com> <20210609054621.GB4910@sequoia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 04:22:49PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > + Rijo > > On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 11:16, Tyler Hicks wrote: [snip] > > > - tee_shm_alloc() performs allocations using contiguous pages > > from alloc_pages() while tee_shm_register() performs non-contiguous > > allocations with kcalloc(). I suspect this would be fine but I don't > > know the secure world side of these things well enough to assess the > > risk involved with such a change on the kernel side. > > > > I don't think that would make any difference. Agree. > > > I should have mentioned this in the cover letter but my hope was that > > these minimal changes would be accepted and then additional work could > > be done to merge tee_shm_alloc() and tee_shm_register() in a way that > > would allow the caller to request contiguous or non-contiguous pages, > > fix up the additional issues mentioned above, and then adjust the > > call sites in ftpm and tee_bnxt_fw as appropriate. > > > > I think that's a bigger set of changes because there are several things > > that still confuse/concern me: > > > > - Why does tee_shm_alloc() use TEE_SHM_MAPPED while tee_shm_register() > > uses TEE_SHM_KERNEL_MAPPED or TEE_SHM_USER_MAPPED? Why do all three > > exist? > > AFAIK, its due the the inherent nature of tee_shm_alloc() and > tee_shm_register() where tee_shm_alloc() doesn't need to know whether > its a kernel or user-space memory since it is the one that allocates > whereas tee_shm_register() need to know that since it has to register > pre-allocated client memory. > > > - Why does tee_shm_register() unconditionally use non-contiguous > > allocations without ever taking into account whether or not > > OPTEE_SMC_SEC_CAP_DYNAMIC_SHM was set? It sounds like that's required > > from my reading of https://optee.readthedocs.io/en/latest/architecture/core.html#noncontiguous-shared-buffers. > > Yeah, but do we have platforms in OP-TEE that don't support dynamic > shared memory? I guess it has become the sane default which is a > mandatory requirement when it comes to OP-TEE driver in u-boot. > > > - Why is TEE_SHM_REGISTER implemented at the TEE driver level when it is > > specific to OP-TEE? How to better abstract that away? > > > > I would like you to go through Section "3.2.4. Shared Memory" in TEE > Client API Specification. There are two standard ways for shared > memory approach with TEE: > > 1. A Shared Memory block can either be existing Client Application > memory (kernel driver in our case) which is subsequently registered > with the TEE Client API (using tee_shm_register() in our case). > > 2. Or memory which is allocated on behalf of the Client Application > using the TEE > Client API (using tee_shm_alloc() in our case). > > > Let me know if you agree with the more minimal approach that I took for > > these bug fix series or still feel like tee_shm_register() should be > > fixed up so that it is usable. Thanks! > > From drivers perspective I think the change should be: > > tee_shm_alloc() > > to > > kcalloc() > tee_shm_register() I had another approach in mind in "[PATCH 0/7] tee: shared memory updates", https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210609102324.2222332-1-jens.wiklander@linaro.org/ The flags needed by tee_shm_alloc() and tee_shm_register() aren't very intuitive and in fact only accept quite few combinations. So my idea was to hide those flags from callers outside of the TEE subsystem with tee_shm_alloc_kernel_buf(). The approach with tee_shm_register() you suggest above has the drawback that the TEE driver is forced to be able to handle any kernel memory. This is OK with OP-TEE and dynamic shared memory enabled, but there are platforms where dynamic shared memory isn't enabled. In those case must the memory be allocated from a special pool. Do you see any problem with instead replacing tee_shm_alloc() with tee_shm_alloc_kernel_buf()? Cheers, Jens