linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] dt-bindings: arm: Add scmi

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: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2202241531111.239973@ubuntu-linux-20-04-desktop>
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 15:34:01 -0800 (PST)
From:   Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
To:     Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Oleksii Moisieiev <Oleksii_Moisieiev@...m.com>,
        Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Souvik Chakravarty <Souvik.Chakravarty@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] dt-bindings: arm: Add scmi_devid paramter for

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 05:15:49PM +0000, Oleksii Moisieiev wrote:
> > > Hi Sudeep,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 04:06:37PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > > Hi Oleksii,
> > > > 
> > > > My initial feedback on this. And thanks Cristian for making it so easy as
> > > > you have covered most of the things in depth(which I might have not done
> > > > myself that well)
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:00:03AM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 05:26:46PM +0000, Oleksii Moisieiev wrote:
> > > > > > Introducing new parameter called scmi_devid to the device-tree bindings.
> > > > > > This parameter should be set for the device nodes, which has
> > > > > > clocks/power-domains/resets working through SCMI.
> > > > 
> > > > I prefer you had given more details on your usage model here instead of
> > > > pointing to the other Xen thread as it helps for someone without much
> > > > background on Xen or your use-case to review this.
> > > > 
> > > Let me describe the process in few words:
> > > We implemented a new feature, called SCI-mediator in Xen.
> > > The proposed implementation allows Guests to communicate with the Firmware using SCMI
> > > protocol with SMC as a transport. Other implementation are also
> > > possible, such as SCMI-Mailbox, SCPI-mailbox etc.
> > > 
> > > In this feature Xen is the Trusted Agent, which receives the following
> > > information in Xen device-tree:
> > > 1) All channels should be described, each channel defined as
> > > arm,scmi-shmem node;
> > > 2) Scmi node arm,scmi-smc with protocols description;
> > 
> > Sounds good so far.
> > 
> > > 3) scmi-devid should be set in nodes, which works through SCMI.
> > >
> > 
> > Why is this needed for Guest OS, you need not populate this if Guest OS
> > is not required to use it, right ? If it is needed just by Xen hypervisor,
> > lets talk about that and why it is bad idea to mix that with general
> > SCMI bindings.
> 
> I'll try to help Oleksii by answering here, I hope I am not off the mark
> :-)
> 
> I think Sudeep is right, scmi-devid is not needed by the guest OS.
> 
> The host device tree is a more interesting discussion. As the host
> device tree is meant to be generic and not tied to a specific version of
> Linux, it should fully describe the SCMI interface available. If the
> device tree is provided to a Trusted Agent, then it should also have the
> scmi-devid information, right?
> 
> 
> > > On start Xen inits itself as trusted agent and requests agent
> > > configuration by using BASE_DISCOVER_AGENT message. This message is sent
> > > to each configured channel to get agent_id
> > > 
> > > On Domain creation stage Xen will do the following steps:
> > > 1) Assign channel to the Guest and map channel address to the Domain
> > > address. For the Domain this address should be the same;
> > > 2) Generate arm,scmi-shmem and arm,scmi-smc nodes if needed for Guest
> > > device-tree (the device-tree which should be passed to the Guest);
> > > 3) Process devices, which are passed through to this Guest and set
> > > BASE_SET_DEVICE_PERMISSIONS for the scmi-devid, received from the
> > > device-node;
> > >
> > 
> > I am confused here. So the Xen knows which devices are assigned to each
> > Guest OS but doesn't know device ID for them, but relies on the device
> > tree node ?
> 
> Which devices go to which guest OS is a user-provided configuration. For
> instance, a user can say: "assing /amba/ethernet@...e0000 to dom1". This
> is normal and not related to SCMI: when a user configures a static
> partitioning system, they decide which resources belong to which domain.
> 
> So Xen is told that /amba/ethernet@...e0000 is supposed to go to dom1.
> Xen proceeds to map memory and interrupts corresponding to
> /amba/ethernet@...e0000 to dom1. So far so good. What about SCMI?
> 
> In Oleksii's design, Xen is going to assign one of the available SCMI
> channels to dom1 and restrict its permission to only
> /amba/ethernet@...e0000. To do that, Xen needs to know the scmi-devid of
> /amba/ethernet@...e0000. As far as I can tell there is nothing
> Xen-specific in this activitity, that's why I asked Oleksii to reach out
> to the upstream device tree community to improve the generic bindings
> for everyone's benefits.

Let's leave Linux and Xen aside for the moment. What are other possible
Trusted Agents? (Maybe TF-A?) How do they get the scmi-devid? It looks
like it was supposed to come from device tree but nobody got around to
adding it to the binding because it is not used by Linux?