[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241015101716.740829-1-jens.wiklander@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:15:32 +0200
From: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Olivier Masse <olivier.masse@....com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...labora.com>,
Brian Starkey <Brian.Starkey@....com>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
"T . J . Mercier" <tjmercier@...gle.com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
azarrabi@....qualcomm.com,
Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>
Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] TEE subsystem for restricted dma-buf allocations
Hi,
This patch set allocates the restricted DMA-bufs via the TEE subsystem.
This a complete rewrite compared to the previous patch set [1], and other
earlier proposals [2] and [3] with a separate restricted heap.
The TEE subsystem handles the DMA-buf allocations since it is the TEE
(OP-TEE, AMD-TEE, TS-TEE, or a future QTEE) which sets up the restrictions
for the memory used for the DMA-bufs.
I've added a new IOCTL, TEE_IOC_RSTMEM_ALLOC, to allocate the restricted
DMA-bufs. This new IOCTL reaches the backend TEE driver, allowing it to
choose how to allocate the restricted physical memory.
TEE_IOC_RSTMEM_ALLOC is quite similar to TEE_IOC_SHM_ALLOC so it's tempting
to extend TEE_IOC_SHM_ALLOC with two new flags
TEE_IOC_SHM_FLAG_SECURE_VIDEO and TEE_IOC_SHM_FLAG_SECURE_TRUSTED_UI for
the same feature. However, it might be a bit confusing since
TEE_IOC_SHM_ALLOC only returns an anonymous file descriptor, but
TEE_IOC_SHM_FLAG_SECURE_VIDEO and TEE_IOC_SHM_FLAG_SECURE_TRUSTED_UI would
return a DMA-buf file descriptor instead. What do others think?
This can be tested on QEMU with the following steps:
repo init -u https://github.com/jenswi-linaro/manifest.git -m qemu_v8.xml \
-b prototype/sdp-v2
repo sync -j8
cd build
make toolchains -j4
make all -j$(nproc)
make run-only
# login and at the prompt:
xtest --sdp-basic
https://optee.readthedocs.io/en/latest/building/prerequisites.html
list dependencies needed to build the above.
The tests are pretty basic, mostly checking that a Trusted Application in
the secure world can access and manipulate the memory. There are also some
negative tests for out of bounds buffers etc.
Thanks,
Jens
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240830070351.2855919-1-jens.wiklander@linaro.org/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20240515112308.10171-1-yong.wu@mediatek.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220805135330.970-1-olivier.masse@nxp.com/
Changes since the V1 RFC:
* Based on v6.11
* Complete rewrite, replacing the restricted heap with TEE_IOC_RSTMEM_ALLOC
Changes since Olivier's post [2]:
* Based on Yong Wu's post [1] where much of dma-buf handling is done in
the generic restricted heap
* Simplifications and cleanup
* New commit message for "dma-buf: heaps: add Linaro restricted dmabuf heap
support"
* Replaced the word "secure" with "restricted" where applicable
Jens Wiklander (2):
tee: add restricted memory allocation
optee: support restricted memory allocation
drivers/tee/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/tee/optee/core.c | 21 ++++
drivers/tee/optee/optee_private.h | 6 +
drivers/tee/optee/optee_smc.h | 35 ++++++
drivers/tee/optee/smc_abi.c | 45 ++++++-
drivers/tee/tee_core.c | 33 ++++-
drivers/tee/tee_private.h | 2 +
drivers/tee/tee_rstmem.c | 200 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/tee/tee_shm.c | 2 +
drivers/tee/tee_shm_pool.c | 69 ++++++++++-
include/linux/tee_core.h | 6 +
include/linux/tee_drv.h | 9 ++
include/uapi/linux/tee.h | 33 ++++-
13 files changed, 455 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 drivers/tee/tee_rstmem.c
--
2.43.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists