linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 02/12] firmware: qcom: scm: enable the TZ mem allocator

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]

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 15:59:56 +0530
From: Kuldeep Singh <quic_kuldsing@...cinc.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
CC: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Elliot Berman
	<quic_eberman@...cinc.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski
	<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Guru Das Srinagesh
	<quic_gurus@...cinc.com>,
        Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>,
        "Maximilian
 Luz" <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
        Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
        "Srini
 Kandagatla" <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <kernel@...cinc.com>,
        "Bartosz
 Golaszewski" <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
        Deepti Jaggi
	<quic_djaggi@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/12] firmware: qcom: scm: enable the TZ mem allocator

> > > As we're not moving from the callers freely allocating what they need,
> > > to a fixed sized pool of 256kb. Please document why 256kb was choosen,
> > > so that we have something to fall back on when someone runs out of this
> > > space, or wonders "why not 128kb?".
> > >
> >
> > If you worry about these pools being taken out of the total memory and
> > prefer to have a way to avoid it, I was thinking about another
> > build-time mode for the allocator - one where there's no pool but it
> > just allocates chunks using dma_alloc_coherent() like before and pool
> > size is ignored. Does it sound good?
> >
> 
> Or we could even have an argument for the initial size of the pool and
> then once it's exhausted, we'd add a new chunk (maybe twice the size?)
> and so on.

Hi Bartosz,

Thanks for shmbridge patch series. Few questions.

	1. With current design of every client maintaining it's own pool,
	For any target, we might end up occupying lot more space by
	different clients than we actually need.

	2. Also, there's no option to configure pool size for each client at
	runtime level and a fixed 256K value is chosen for qcom_scm/qseecom.
	Pool size will be same for each target and thus making it less
	scalabale if there's adjustment needed at target specific level.
	Ex: For a low DDR memory target, pool size should scale down accordingly
	as 256K will become a big ask but there's no way to choose specific pool
	size for just one target.
		2.1 One way to do configure custom pool size value is to add new
		property in qcom_scm/qseecom or client DT node and then create
		pool of size with this provided value. Though there are ways to
		tackle this, but still clients specifying it's own pool size
		will always fetch more CMA region than what is actually needed.

Can you please share your ideas as well for upcoming version.

Regards
Kuldeep