[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3aaafe47-3733-a4d5-038d-a7e439309282@collabora.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 17:17:58 +0200
From: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...labora.com>
To: Joakim Bech <joakim.bech@...aro.org>,
Yong Wu (吴勇) <Yong.Wu@...iatek.com>
Cc: "matthias.bgg@...il.com" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
"christian.koenig@....com" <christian.koenig@....com>,
"angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com"
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"sumit.semwal@...aro.org" <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
"jstultz@...gle.com" <jstultz@...gle.com>,
"linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Jianjiao Zeng (曾健姣)
<Jianjiao.Zeng@...iatek.com>,
Kuohong Wang (王國鴻)
<kuohong.wang@...iatek.com>,
"conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
"Brian.Starkey@....com" <Brian.Starkey@....com>,
"tjmercier@...gle.com" <tjmercier@...gle.com>,
"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org"
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] dma-buf: heaps: mtk_sec_heap: Initialise tee session
Le 27/09/2023 à 15:46, Joakim Bech a écrit :
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:49:50PM +0000, Yong Wu (吴勇) wrote:
>> On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 11:32 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>> Il 12/09/23 08:17, Yong Wu (吴勇) ha scritto:
>>>> On Mon, 2023-09-11 at 11:29 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Il 11/09/23 04:30, Yong Wu ha scritto:
>>>>>> The TEE probe later than dma-buf heap, and PROBE_DEDER doesn't
>>>>>> work
>>>>>> here since this is not a platform driver, therefore initialise
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> TEE
>>>>>> context/session while we allocate the first secure buffer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/dma-buf/heaps/mtk_secure_heap.c | 61
>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/mtk_secure_heap.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/dma-
>>>>>> buf/heaps/mtk_secure_heap.c
>>>>>> index bbf1c8dce23e..e3da33a3d083 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/mtk_secure_heap.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/mtk_secure_heap.c
>>>>>> @@ -10,6 +10,12 @@
>>>>>> #include <linux/err.h>
>>>>>> #include <linux/module.h>
>>>>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/tee_drv.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/uuid.h>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define TZ_TA_MEM_UUID "4477588a-8476-11e2-ad15-
>>>>>> e41f1390d676"
>>>>>> +
>>>>> Is this UUID the same for all SoCs and all TZ versions?
>>>> Yes. It is the same for all SoCs and all TZ versions currently.
>>>>
>>> That's good news!
>>>
>>> Is this UUID used in any userspace component? (example: Android
>>> HALs?)
>> No. Userspace never use it. If userspace would like to allocate this
>> secure buffer, it can achieve through the existing dmabuf IOCTL via
>> /dev/dma_heap/mtk_svp node.
>>
> In general I think as mentioned elsewhere in comments, that there isn't
> that much here that seems to be unique for MediaTek in this patch
> series, so I think it worth to see whether this whole patch set can be
> made more generic. Having said that, the UUID is always unique for a
> certain Trusted Application. So, it's not entirely true saying that the
> UUID is the same for all SoCs and all TrustZone versions. It might be
> true for a family of MediaTek devices and the TEE in use, but not
> generically.
>
> So, if we need to differentiate between different TA implementations,
> then we need different UUIDs. If it would be possible to make this patch
> set generic, then it sounds like a single UUID would be sufficient, but
> that would imply that all TA's supporting such a generic UUID would be
> implemented the same from an API point of view. Which also means that
> for example Trusted Application function ID's needs to be the same etc.
> Not impossible to achieve, but still not easy (different TEE follows
> different specifications) and it's not typically something we've done in
> the past.
>
> Unfortunately there is no standardized database of TA's describing what
> they implement and support.
>
> As an alternative, we could implement a query call in the TEE answering,
> "What UUID does your TA have that implements secure unmapped heap?".
> I.e., something that reminds of a lookup table. Then we wouldn't have to
> carry this in UAPI, DT or anywhere else.
Joakim does a TA could offer a generic API and hide the hardware specific
details (like kernel uAPI does for drivers) ?
Aside that question I wonder what are the needs to perform a 'secure' playback.
I have in mind 2 requirements:
- secure memory regions, which means configure the hardware to ensure that only
dedicated hardware blocks and read or write into it.
- set hardware blocks in secure modes so they access to secure memory.
Do you see something else ?
Regards,
Benjamin
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists