linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add Qualcomm QSEECOM interface

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 03:27:01 +0100
From:   Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Steev Klimaszewski <steev@...i.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] dt-bindings: firmware: Add Qualcomm QSEECOM
 interface

On 3/9/23 02:33, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 09/03/2023 00:44, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>> On 3/8/23 23:16, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 05, 2023 at 03:21:18AM +0100, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>>>> Add bindings for the Qualcomm Secure Execution Environment interface
>>>> (QSEECOM).
>>>
>>> Pretty sure I already asked, but no answer in the commit message. Why do
>>> we need this? You've already declared the platform supports SCM calls
>>> with "qcom,scm". Why can't you probe whether you have QSEECOM or not? DT
>>> is for non-discoverable h/w we are stuck with.
>>
>> Yes, you've asked this before but I can only repeat what I've written in
>> my last response to your question: I am not aware of any way to properly
>> discover the interface at runtime from software.
>>
>> If it makes you happy, I can put this in the commit message as well...
>>
>>> Why is software made non-discoverable too?
>>
>> Please direct that question at the Qualcomm guys who actually designed
>> that interface. I can't give you an answer to that, and I'm not all that
>> happy about this either.
>>
>> To reiterate: I've reverse engineered this based on the Windows driver.
>> The Windows driver loads on an ACPI HID and it doesn't use any function
>> to check/verify whether the interface is actually present. Adding a DT
>> entry is the straight-forward adaption to having a HID in ACPI.
>>
>>> Nodes with only a compatible string are usually just an abuse of DT to
>>> instantiate some driver.
>>
>> If you or anyone here has any idea on how to discover the presence of
>> this, please feel free to let me know and I'd be happy to implement
>> that. Until then, I unfortunately don't see any other way of dealing
>> with this.
> 
> You can probably try requesting QSEECOM version. According to msm-3.18:
> 
>          uint32_t feature = 10;
> 
>          rc = qseecom_scm_call(6, 3, &feature, sizeof(feature),
>                  &resp, sizeof(resp));
>          pr_info("qseecom.qsee_version = 0x%x\n", resp.result);
>          if (rc) {
>                  pr_err("Failed to get QSEE version info %d\n", rc);
>                  goto exit_del_cdev;
>          }
> 

Thanks! I'll give that a try.

As I can't test this on a device that doesn't have qseecom, it would
probably be a good idea if someone could test this on a device that has
qcom_scm but no qseecom (if those even exist) to make sure this doesn't
misbehave.

Regards,
Max