linux-kernel - Re: [Linux-stm32] [PATCH v2 00/14] Introduce STM32MP1 RCC in secured mode

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <58d107c4-eb3d-e49a-8377-007b6f21baf4@denx.de>
Date:   Thu, 11 Mar 2021 21:09:40 +0100
From:   Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
To:     Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>,
        Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        "Alex G." <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>,
        Gabriel FERNANDEZ - foss <gabriel.fernandez@...s.st.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Etienne CARRIERE <etienne.carriere@...com>
Cc:     "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com" 
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux-stm32] [PATCH v2 00/14] Introduce STM32MP1 RCC in secured
 mode

On 3/11/21 7:10 PM, Alexandre TORGUE wrote:
> Hi Guys
> 
> On 3/11/21 5:11 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 3/11/21 3:41 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On 11.03.21 15:02, Alexandre TORGUE wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/21 12:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>> On 3/11/21 9:08 AM, Alexandre TORGUE wrote:
>>>>>> 1- Break the current ABI: as soon as those patches are merged, 
>>>>>> stm32mp157c-dk2.dtb will impose to use
>>>>>> A tf-a for scmi clocks. For people using u-boot spl, the will have 
>>>>>> to create their own "no-secure" devicetree.
>>>>>
>>>>> NAK, this breaks existing boards and existing setups, e.g. DK2 that 
>>>>> does not use ATF.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2-As you suggest, create a new "secure" dtb per boards (Not my 
>>>>>> wish for maintenance perspectives).
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Alex (G) that the "secure" option should be opt-in.
>>>>> That way existing setups remain working and no extra requirements 
>>>>> are imposed on MP1 users. Esp. since as far as I understand this, 
>>>>> the "secure" part isn't really about security, but rather about 
>>>>> moving clock configuration from Linux to some firmware blob.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3- Keep kernel device tree as they are and applied this secure 
>>>>>> layer (scmi clocks phandle) thanks to dtbo in
>>>>>> U-boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this really better than
>>>>> #include "stm32mp15xx-enable-secure-stuff.dtsi"
>>>>> in a board DT ? Because that is how I imagine the opt-in "secure" 
>>>>> option could work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Discussing with Patrick about u-boot, we could use dtbo application 
>>>> thanks to extlinux.conf. BUT it it will not prevent other case (i.e. 
>>>> TF-A which jump directly in kernel@). So the "least worst" solution 
>>>> is to create a new "stm32mp1257c-scmi-dk2 board which will overload 
>>>> clock entries with a scmi phandle (as proposed by Alex).
>>>
>>> I raised this issue before with your colleagues. I still believe the 
>>> correct way
>>> would be for the TF-A to pass down either a device tree or an overlay 
>>> with the
>>> actual settings in use, e.g.:
>>>
>>>    - Clocks/Resets done via SCMI
>>>    - Reserved memory regions
>>>
>>> If TF-A directly boots Linux, it can apply the overlay itself, 
>>> otherwise it's
>>> passed down to SSBL that applies it before booting Linux.
>>
>> That sounds good and it is something e.g. R-Car already does, it 
>> merges DT fragment from prior stages at U-Boot level and then passes 
>> the result to Linux.
>>
>> So on ST hardware, the same could very well happen and it would work 
>> for both non-ATF / ATF / ATF+TEE options.
> 
> Even this solution sounds good but we are currently not able to do it in 
> our TF-A/u-boot so not feasible for the moment.

Why not ? U-Boot is perfectly capable of merging prior stage DT and DT 
loaded from elsewhere. See R-Car3 for example.

> So we have to find a 
> solution for now. Create a new dtb can be this solution. Our internal 
> strategy is to use scmi on our official ST board. It will be a really 
> drawback to include a "no-scmi.dtsi" in DH boards (for example) and to 
> create a stm32mp157c-noscmi-dk2.dts ?

I would highly prefer the SCMI to be opt-in, not opt-out.

But still, isn't it possible to auto-detect the board configuration in 
Linux and pick the clock enumeration based on that automatically ?