| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB44811AE46803D10FD8A5B8B0888E0@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 08:53:25 +0000
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
CC: "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"sudeep.holla@....com" <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V6 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc for the ARM
SMC/HVC mailbox
Hi Jassi,
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc for the
> ARM SMC/HVC mailbox
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:31 PM Andre Przywara
> <andre.przywara@....com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:44:37 +0000
> > Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > >
> > > The ARM SMC/HVC mailbox binding describes a firmware interface to
> > > trigger actions in software layers running in the EL2 or EL3 exception
> levels.
> > > The term "ARM" here relates to the SMC instruction as part of the
> > > ARM instruction set, not as a standard endorsed by ARM Ltd.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > > ---
> > > .../devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-smc.yaml | 96
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-smc.yaml
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-smc.yaml
> > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-smc.yaml
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..bf01bec035fc
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-smc.yaml
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) %YAML 1.2
> > > +---
> > > +$id:
> > > +https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fde
> > >
> +vicetree.org%2Fschemas%2Fmailbox%2Farm-smc.yaml%23&data=02%
> 7C01
> > >
> +%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com%7Cf8065d24dd474238baf008d73bf8dc7a%7C686
> ea1d3
> > >
> +bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C1%7C637043812342903260&sd
> ata=vC3
> > >
> +S8hvYDxDhNbIQoC44hpO5bw1yYZdBwu%2B%2Fp8mV0hI%3D&reserv
> ed=0
> > > +$schema:
> > > +https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fde
> > >
> +vicetree.org%2Fmeta-schemas%2Fcore.yaml%23&data=02%7C01%7C
> peng.
> > >
> +fan%40nxp.com%7Cf8065d24dd474238baf008d73bf8dc7a%7C686ea1d3bc2
> b4c6f
> > >
> +a92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C1%7C637043812342903260&sdata=IDHd
> vf1Mgw1
> > > +BR%2Bo4XJ%2BjQS%2Bx1pSBzADnW44B2hZLzKw%3D&reserved=0
> > > +
> > > +title: ARM SMC Mailbox Interface
> > > +
> > > +maintainers:
> > > + - Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > > +
> > > +description: |
> > > + This mailbox uses the ARM smc (secure monitor call) and hvc
> > > +(hypervisor
> >
> > I think "or" instead of "and" is less confusing.
> >
> > > + call) instruction to trigger a mailbox-connected activity in
> > > + firmware, executing on the very same core as the caller. The
> > > + value of r0/w0/x0 the firmware returns after the smc call is
> > > + delivered as a received message to the mailbox framework, so
> > > + synchronous communication can be established. The exact meaning
> > > + of the action the mailbox triggers as well as the return value is
> > > + defined by their users and is not subject to this binding.
> > > +
> > > + One use case of this mailbox is the SCMI interface, which uses
> > > + shared
> >
> > One example use case of this mailbox ...
> > (to make it more obvious that it's not restricted to this)
> >
> > > + memory to transfer commands and parameters, and a mailbox to
> > > + trigger a function call. This allows SoCs without a separate
> > > + management processor (or when such a processor is not available
> > > + or used) to use this standardized interface anyway.
> > > +
> > > + This binding describes no hardware, but establishes a firmware
> interface.
> > > + Upon receiving an SMC using one of the described SMC function
> > > + identifiers,
> >
> > ... the described SMC function
> > identifier,
> >
> > > + the firmware is expected to trigger some mailbox connected
> functionality.
> > > + The communication follows the ARM SMC calling convention.
> > > + Firmware expects an SMC function identifier in r0 or w0. The
> > > + supported identifiers are passed from consumers,
> >
> > identifier
> >
> > "passed from consumers": How? Where?
> > But I want to repeat: We should not allow this.
> > This is a binding for a mailbox controller driver, not a generic firmware
> backdoor.
> >
> Exactly. The mailbox controller here is the SMC/HVC instruction, which
> needs 9 arguments to work. The fact that the fist argument is always going to
> be same on a platform is just the way we use this instruction.
>
> > We should be as strict as possible to avoid any security issues.
> >
> Any example of such a security issue?
>
> > The firmware certainly knows the function ID it implements. The firmware
> controls the DT. So it is straight-forward to put the ID into the DT. The
> firmware could even do this at boot time, dynamically, before passing on the
> DT to the non-secure world (bootloader or kernel).
> >
> > What would be the use case of this functionality?
> >
> At least for flexibility and consistency.
>
> > > or listed in the the arm,func-ids
> >
> > arm,func-id
> >
> > > + properties as described below. The firmware can return one value
> > > + in
> >
> > property
> >
> > > + the first SMC result register, it is expected to be an error
> > > + value, which shall be propagated to the mailbox client.
> > > +
> > > + Any core which supports the SMC or HVC instruction can be used,
> > > + as long as a firmware component running in EL3 or EL2 is handling
> these calls.
> > > +
> > > +properties:
> > > + compatible:
> > > + oneOf:
> > > + - description:
> > > + For implementations using ARM SMC instruction.
> > > + const: arm,smc-mbox
> > > +
> > > + - description:
> > > + For implementations using ARM HVC instruction.
> > > + const: arm,hvc-mbox
> >
> > I am not particularly happy with this, but well ...
> >
> > > +
> > > + "#mbox-cells":
> > > + const: 1
> >
> > Why is this "1"? What is this number used for? It used to be the channel ID,
> but since you are describing a single channel controller only, this should be 0
> now.
> >
> Yes. I overlooked it and actually queued the patch for pull request.
In Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/mailbox.txt
#mbox-cells: Must be at least 1.
So I use 1 here, 0 not work. Because of_mbox_index_xlate expect at least 1 here.
So I need modify Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/mailbox.txt
and add xlate for smc mailbox?
Thanks,
Peng.
> But I think the bindings should not carry a 'fix' patch later. Also I realise this
> revision of binding hasn't been reviewed by Rob. Maybe I should drop the
> patch for now.
>
> > > +
> > > + arm,func-id:
> > > + description: |
> > > + An 32-bit value specifying the function ID used by the mailbox.
> >
> > A single 32-bit value ...
> >
> > > + The function ID follow the ARM SMC calling convention standard
> [1].
> >
> > follows
> >
> > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> > > +
> > > +required:
> > > + - compatible
> > > + - "#mbox-cells"
> > > +
> > > +examples:
> > > + - |
> > > + sram@...000 {
> > > + compatible = "mmio-sram";
> > > + reg = <0x0 0x93f000 0x0 0x1000>;
> > > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > > + #size-cells = <1>;
> > > + ranges = <0x0 0x93f000 0x1000>;
> > > +
> > > + cpu_scp_lpri: scp-shmem@0 {
> > > + compatible = "arm,scmi-shmem";
> > > + reg = <0x0 0x200>;
> > > + };
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + smc_tx_mbox: tx_mbox {
> > > + #mbox-cells = <1>;
> >
> > As mentioned above, should be 0.
> >
> > > + compatible = "arm,smc-mbox";
> > > + /* optional */
> >
> > First: having "optional" in a specific example is not helpful, just confusing.
> > Second: It is actually *not* optional in this case, as there is no other way of
> propagating the function ID. The SCMI driver as the mailbox client has
> certainly no clue about this.
> > I think I said this previously: Relying on the mailbox client to pass the
> function ID sounds broken, as this is a property of the mailbox controller driver.
> The mailbox client does not care about this mailbox communication detail, it
> just wants to trigger the mailbox.
> >
> Again, the mailbox controller here is the SMC/HVC _instruction_, which
> doesn't care what value the first argument carry.
>
> Cheers!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists