linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: add basic SecureOS support

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]

Message-ID: <CAAVeFuKsa=GsxexQOSOYPYvkAXaEZXfW1+zRmv25CtFEY=T_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:05:04 +0900
From:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
To:	Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Cc:	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	Chris Johnson <CJohnson@...dia.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Karan Jhavar <kjhavar@...dia.com>,
	Matthew Longnecker <MLongnecker@...dia.com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
	Joseph Lo <josephl@...dia.com>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: add basic SecureOS support

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com> wrote:
> One way to make the backend generic would be to have something like
> one of the following (some syntax omitted due to laziness):
>
>         u32 __naked __call_smc(u32 r0, ...)
>         {
>                 asm volatile (
>                         stmfd   sp!, {r4-r11,lr}
>                         smc     #0
>                         ldmfd   sp!, {r4-r11,pc}
>                         ::: "memory"
>                 );
>         }
>
>         /* The above works for up to 4 u32 arguments */
>
>         u32 __naked __call_smc(u32 r0, ...)
>         {
>                 asm volatile (
>                         mov     ip, sp
>                         stmfd   sp!, {r4-r11,lr}
>                         ldmia   ip, {r4-r11}
>                         smc     #0
>                         ldmfd   sp!, {r4-r11,pc}
>                         ::: "memory"
>                 );
>         }
>
>         /*
>          * Works for up to 13 u32 arguments, provided the stack is deep
>          * enough to provide suitable garbage data to fill the registers
>          * if the caller supplied fewer arguments (a bit of a hack)
>          */
>
>         u32 __naked __call_smc(struct pt_regs *regs) {
>
>                 asm(
>                         stmfd   sp!, {r4-r11,lr}
>                         /* load regs from <regs> */
>                         smc #0
>                         /* save regs back to <regs> */
>                         ldmfd   sp!, {r4-r11,pc}
>                 );
>         }
>
>         /*
>          * Most generic,  least-efficient version.
>          * Can return up to 13 u32 results instead of just one.
>          * For convenience, the r0 value returned by the SMC could be
>          * left in r0 so that it also determines the return value of the
>          * function.
>          *
>          * Most of the time, SMC shouldn't be called on any hot path,
>          * otherwise the performance battle is already lost -- so it may
>          * not be crucial to reach the maximum possible efficiency for
>          * these calls.
>          */
>
>
> A particular firmware's Linux glue code might have to put extra stuff
> around calls to generic_smc, but at least generic_smc itself wouldn't
> need to be reinvented, and the firmware-specific glue code could usually
> avoid asm.
>
>> Another example is the function that Tomasz shown
>> (https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos-smc.S?id=refs/tags/next-20130606
>> ), which preserves r4-r11 but also assumes r3 is an argument - that's
>> again another slightly different convention.
>
> ... for which the above implementations of __call_smc() should work too.
>
>> All in all the needs of the various firmwares might end up being just
>> different enough that we need to have a different backend for each of
>> them. The firmware_ops defined in arch/arm/include/asm/firmware.h
>> perform the abstraction at a higher level, which seems more fit here
>> IMHO.
>>
>> Alex.
>
> Indeed.  If you think you could work with one of the above generics, we
> could try it and see what it looks like though.
>
> If it's an awkward fit, I might be being too optimistic.

I agree that your versions would most likely work in our (and probably
many others) case. But I wonder if individual platforms will not
prefer to sacrifice the ease of use of a generic version for the
ability to write faster code that will just preserve what is needed
(whether that performance gain is justified or not is of course
subject to debate). I don't have enough hindsight to decide which
approach is the best, but until we have more examples of firmwares
that would justify such a factorization, I think I'd like to go with
our own version first - for there is already more than enough to fix
in this patch. :)

Thanks,
Alex.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/