[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <PH7PR11MB76054BC0C863E5947C7B2DAFE5362@PH7PR11MB7605.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:22:57 +0000
From: "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
To: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org" <op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org>, "Shyam
Saini" <shyamsaini@...ux.microsoft.com>, Jerome Forissier
<jerome.forissier@...aro.org>, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>, "Ilias
Apalodimas" <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, Bart Van Assche
<bvanassche@....org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Ard Biesheuvel
<ardb@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Alex Bennée
<alex.bennee@...aro.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 1/3] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB)
subsystem
> > > +struct rpmb_frame {
> > > + u8 stuff[196];
> > > + u8 key_mac[32];
> > > + u8 data[256];
> > > + u8 nonce[16];
> > > + __be32 write_counter;
> > > + __be16 addr;
> > > + __be16 block_count;
> > > + __be16 result;
> > > + __be16 req_resp;
> > > +} __packed;
> >
> > I haven't looked at the NVME or the UFS spec in detail. Although, I
> > assume the above frame makes sense for those types of
> interfaces/protocols too?
> The rpmb implementation in ufs, has drifted apart from eMMC. E.g. in
> UFS4.0:
> - the frame is different - see struct ufs_arpmb_meta in
> include/uapi/scsi/scsi_bsg_ufs.h,
> - Additional extended header was added,
> - the frame size is no longer 512Bytes (256Bytes meta info + 256Bytes data)
> but 4k,
> - there are 9 rpmb operations instead of 7,
> - The atomicity requirement of the command sequence was waved, And
> probably more differences that I forgot.
> This is why it is better to designated this as an eMMC-only implementation?
As I wrote previously the original implementation has already resolved protocol differences
(NVMe have also different byte ordering) for closed usecase of storing data (not the configuration)
I believe the whole point here is to let TEE driver to store the data, regardless of the technology.
In addition I might be wrong but I don't see much value in eMMC as the UFS and NVMe are currently leading technologies.
Thanks
Tomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists