Message-ID: <20200605092718.GH1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 10:27:18 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Neal Liu <neal.liu@...iatek.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Julius Werner <jwerner@...gle.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...nel.org>,
        "linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        wsd_upstream <wsd_upstream@...iatek.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Crystal Guo (郭晶) <Crystal.Guo@...iatek.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Security Random Number Generator support

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:59:42PM +0800, Neal Liu wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 09:09 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 03:19:03PM +0800, Neal Liu wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 17:34 +0800, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > > This kind of thing is something that ARM have seems to shy away from
> > > > doing - it's a point I brought up many years ago when the whole
> > > > trustzone thing first appeared with its SMC call.  Those around the
> > > > conference table were not interested - ARM seemed to prefer every
> > > > vendor to do off and do their own thing with the SMC interface.
> > > 
> > > Does that mean it make sense to model a sec-rng driver, and get each
> > > vendor's SMC function id by DT node?
> > 
> > _If_ vendors have already gone off and decided to use different SMC
> > function IDs for this, while keeping the rest of the SMC interface
> > the same, then the choice has already been made.
> > 
> > I know on 32-bit that some of the secure world implementations can't
> > be changed; they're burnt into the ROM. I believe on 64-bit that isn't
> > the case, which makes it easier to standardise.
> > 
> > Do you have visibility of how this SMC is implemented in the secure
> > side?  Is it in ATF, and is it done as a vendor hack or is there an
> > element of generic implementation to it?  Has it been submitted
> > upstream to the main ATF repository?
> > 
> 
> Take MediaTek as an example, some SoCs are implemented in ATF, some of
> them are implemented in TEE. We have no plan to make generic
> implementation in "secure world".

I think you have your answer right there - by _not_ making the API
generic and giving no motivation to use it, different vendors are
going to do different things (maybe even with a different API as well)
so there's no point the kernel driver pretending to be a generic
driver. If the driver isn't going to be generic, I see little point in
the SMC function number being in DT.

I think that as a _whole_ is a big mistake - there should be a generic
kernel driver for this, and there should be a standardised interface to
it through firmware.  So, I would encourage you to try to get it
accepted one way or another amongst vendors as a standardised
interface.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC for 0.8m (est. 1762m) line in suburbia: sync at 13.1Mbps down 424kbps up

Powered by blists - more mailing lists