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=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 66A65C48BCD for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:15:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9B361287 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:15:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234569AbhFIMRe (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jun 2021 08:17:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37066 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231537AbhFIMRc (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jun 2021 08:17:32 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6C1BC061574 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 05:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id r14so12203600ljd.10 for ; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 05:15:36 -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=5QTe8ggXmcP5YLPcI+okmmLCd3u2yTRzdcEWNfi9I3g=; b=P77NhzV+u6icztW7HAozIKitw49sImiONiIdaiZJ3kUfiKSiHhhOzkhYh7UV+yonJd 6Z9fPLayvnjZQU1qPG3jkWroI8ljcF31avfSp/nyzQgdx7vXramPl959OfF4oN9uYOWB JXuKNpFUretqIRudmnQoJm+Qu44PGxo51IqbdQk5Zdu/xF4OO7RLUHbFW0SqidFf8uPt dD8xyDU6nYVQ0e6eg488V9T6t8/7l3goSCFwH6WFeoYs38Vzpfmn8KapR875D3QBV0Jd NCGuqchTqT5cDyYHDGhqxBV0Tjbly0bhANPZOxPJ0YCuqK1dFPpx7IN9N6nOdgAkclAF gOMw== 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=5QTe8ggXmcP5YLPcI+okmmLCd3u2yTRzdcEWNfi9I3g=; b=A/MKMBJV0DFm0bYI1SPFttD1jRP0QhWc5h7z+LTXlpYQuz8Z6gX5eR5qMg/EaQhXqj oxuMHb6z8c2Did7SyBmYedRndWRf7uN146COzvpb30lgVTqJcFySjNfo42Hfs88vVbh2 44hNyoBbMg2hbQnId9WLL/Wg1kvFcMuReqSyp2OHgw0w9IUhBygiT2sX2EWn+FTHh3fn GWbA/1tSs3cL6/0fU/g2e8BBHz9A/OoqPNMwiexlX1eY7L0ptvighP/rybfSNzLihejm E+RgePowTC08t8p7+CKXtq3WOjFtQzF81KK3Wzs4eoULNKdLuT0m6X2PiP+PHUtdelt9 9IWg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530MHEKUO9gM4C69517QqgKmSgiRneOLz38xJMaF5dvdCHESc518 f7/jB3MtkPIYLBUNyaULSlQyXlvOMopvwvMP X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJznp1tMzdVuTsRM+REoBAuiCOJBFqpqBI8oNNp3Lxl9njnqQKl0SGkgWHGudxv7oakuqLg3Dg== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a4c8:: with SMTP id p8mr22493717ljm.410.1623240935183; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 05:15:35 -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 n21sm344908lfq.12.2021.06.09.05.15.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 09 Jun 2021 05:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:15:33 +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: <20210609121533.GA2267052@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-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, 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: > > > > On 2021-06-09 09:59:04, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > Hi Tyler, > > > > Hey Sumit - Thanks for the review. > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 05:55, Tyler Hicks wrote: > > > > > > > > Uncouple the registration of dynamic shared memory buffers from the > > > > TEE_SHM_DMA_BUF flag. Drivers may wish to allocate dynamic shared memory > > > > regions but do not need them to be backed by a dma-buf when the memory > > > > region is private to the driver. > > > > > > In this case drivers should use tee_shm_register() instead where the > > > memory allocated is actually private to the driver. However, you need > > > to remove TEE_SHM_DMA_BUF as a mandatory flag for tee_shm_register(). > > > Have a look at an example here [1]. So modifying tee_shm_alloc() for > > > this purpose doesn't look appropriate to me. > > > > > > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tee.c#n73 > > > > I noticed what you did in commit 2a6ba3f794e8 ("tee: enable support to > > register kernel memory") and considered moving ftpm and tee_bnxt_fw over > > to tee_shm_register(). I think that's likely the right long term > > approach but I decided against it since this series is a minimal set of > > bug fixes that will hopefully go to stable (I'm affected by these bugs > > in 5.4). Here are my reasons for feeling like moving to > > tee_shm_register() isn't minimal in terms of a stable-focused fix: > > > > - tee_shm_alloc() looks like it should work fine with AMD-TEE today. > > tee_shm_register() definitely does not since AMD-TEE doesn't provide a > > .shm_register or .shm_unregister hook. This may break existing users > > of AMD-TEE? > > AFAIK, ftpm and tee_bnxt_fw drivers only support OP-TEE at this point. > See ftpm_tee_match() and optee_ctx_match() APIs in corresponding > drivers. > > > - tee_shm_register() has not historically been used for kernel > > allocations and is not fixed wrt the bug that Jens fixed in commit > > f1bbacedb0af ("tee: don't assign shm id for private shms"). > > Yes, that's what I meant earlier to make the TEE_SHM_DMA_BUF flag optional. > > > - 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. > > > 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've just posted "[PATCH 0/7] tee: shared memory updates", https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210609102324.2222332-1-jens.wiklander@linaro.org/ Where tee_shm_alloc() is replaced by among other functions tee_shm_alloc_kernel_buf(). tee_shm_alloc_kernel_buf() takes care of the problem with TEE_SHM_DMA_BUF. Cheers, Jens