Message-ID: <CAHUa44G2xLn9td88H-n9E3yJ6JUnyGL4vZNj0rwisu2ArngYAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jul 2021 08:45:59 +0200
From:   Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     Etienne CARRIERE <etienne.carriere@...com>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        OP-TEE TrustedFirmware <op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jerome Forissier <jerome@...issier.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Asynchronous notifications from secure world

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:12 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 08:05:57AM +0000, Etienne CARRIERE wrote:
> > Hello Sudeep and all,
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 19:52, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Sumit,
> > >
> > > I was holding off you reply as I didn't have all the background on this.
> > > Achin did mention that this is preparatory work for FFA notifications.
> > > I did mention to him that this is more than that, it is custom extension
> > > to address what FF-A notification is trying to in standard way.

Are you suggesting that we should use a hybrid implementation with
FF-A for notifications and keep the rest as is for armv7-a?

> > >
> > > I share same opinion as Marc Z.

>From what I've read in this thread this has mainly been about using
SGI notification and not whether asynchronous notification from OP-TEE
on non-FF-A systems is good or bad. I assume Sumit was asking about
SGI to find out why that wasn't used. This patch set uses SPI.

> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:22:23AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 18:16, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't care about OP-TEE. If you are proposing a contract between S
> > > > > and NS, it has to be TEE and OS independent. That's how the
> > > > > architecture works.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agree, here we are not proposing a common contract among the S and NS
> > > > world that every TEE (based on Arm TrustZone) will use to communicate
> > > > with REE (Linux in our case) but rather an OP-TEE specific
> > > > notifications feature that is built on top of OP-TEE specific ABIs.
> > > >
> > > > And I can see your arguments coming from an FFA perspective but there
> > > > are platforms like the ones based on Armv7 which don't support FFA
> > > > ABI. Maybe Jens can elaborate how this feature will fit in when FFA
> > > > comes into picture?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I can understand that but won't those platforms add the support both in
> > > the kernel(current series) and secure world to address notifications.
> > > While you could argue that it is small extension to what is already present
> > > but I prefer they support FF-A is they need such a support instead of adding
> > > custom mechanisms. It is hard to maintain and each vendor will deviate
> > > from this custom mechanism and soon we will have bunch of them to handle.

Regarding deviation, are we still talking about the OP-TEE driver? So
far I haven't seen any vendor extensions at all in that driver.

> >
> > There exist armv7-a platforms that expect OP-TEE notification support and
> > will not move the FF-A, like the stm32mp15. This platform won't move to FF-A
> > mainly due to the memory cost of the added SPM layer and the device physical
> > constraints.
>
> Fair enough on the use-case and the analysis for not being able to use FF-A.
> As you may already know it doesn't simply this problem. This has been
> discussed for years and FF-A was assumed to be the solution when FF-A
> spec work started.
>
> > We have a usecase for OP-TEE notification. We're working on the integration
> > of an SCMI server in OP-TEE. SCMI notification is a feature needed is this
> > scope and it requires OP-TEE async notification means as those proposed
> > here.
> >
>
> I am aware of this use-case, I understand. But I can only share rants
> which I know doesn't help much.
>
> > This OP-TEE async notif also brings a lot of value in OP-TEE as it allows a
> > OP-TEE secure thread (i.e. executing a trusted application service) to
> > gently wait on a secure interrupt (as a slow bus transaction completion or
> > many other usecase) with the CPU relaxed. This support is provided by the
> > proposed series. I believe existing device should be able to leverage this
> > OP-TEE feature without needing their OP-TEE to move to the new FF-A
> > interface.
> >
>
> While I agree these are nice to have in OPTEE, the timing is just odd.
>
> We are trying hard to push FF-A as standard solution to address all such
> issues that couldn't be solved with OPTEE + DT, now we are back to address
> the same in parallel to FF-A.

It's not exactly the same since the primary target here is armv7-a
where introducing FF-A isn't an obvious choice in all cases. For
OP-TEE armv7-a is special in the way that all secure world processing
is handled by OP-TEE. The internal secure monitor already takes care
of what's implemented in TF-A at EL3 for armv8-a.

This isn't meant to compete with FF-A, it's to make sure that the
OP-TEE armv7-a user base isn't left behind. This doesn't rule out FF-A
support for armv7-a for those prepared to take that step.

Cheers,
Jens

Powered by blists - more mailing lists