linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/10] tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver

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: <00e3bd13-eab8-47b0-b577-dfdb3bd5900e@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 08:57:57 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Amirreza Zarrabi <quic_azarrabi@...cinc.com>,
 Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
 Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
 Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver

On 03/12/2024 05:19, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote:
> +static const struct tee_desc qcom_tee_desc = {
> +	.name = "qcom_tee",
> +	.ops = &qcom_tee_ops,
> +	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> +};
> +
> +static int qcom_tee_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct tee_device *teedev;
> +	int err;
> +
> +	if (!qcom_scm_is_available())
> +		return -EPROBE_DEFER;

So this is part of SCM? Instantiate it there instead of creating fake
DTS nodes.

> +
> +	teedev = tee_device_alloc(&qcom_tee_desc, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(teedev))
> +		return PTR_ERR(teedev);
> +
> +	err = tee_device_register(teedev);
> +	if (err)
> +		goto err_unreg_teedev;
> +
> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, teedev);
> +	return 0;
> +
> +err_unreg_teedev:
> +	tee_device_unregister(teedev);
> +
> +	return err;
> +}
> +
> +static void qcom_tee_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct tee_device *teedev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> +	/* Keep a copy, tee_device_unregister() sets it to NULL. */
> +	struct tee_shm_pool *pool = teedev->pool;
> +
> +	/* Wait for users to go away. */
> +	tee_device_unregister(teedev);
> +	tee_shm_pool_free(pool);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id qcom_tee_dt_match[] = {
> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,tee" },
> +	{},
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qcom_tee_dt_match);
> +
> +static struct platform_driver qcom_tee_platform_driver = {
> +	.probe = qcom_tee_probe,
> +	.remove = qcom_tee_remove,
> +	.driver = {
> +		.name = "qcom_tee",
> +		.of_match_table = qcom_tee_dt_match,
> +	},
> +};
> +
> +int qcom_tee_driver_register(void)
> +{
> +	return platform_driver_register(&qcom_tee_platform_driver);
> +}
> +
> +void qcom_tee_driver_unregister(void)
> +{
> +	platform_driver_unregister(&qcom_tee_platform_driver);
> +}

Why open-coding typical module platform driver macro?


Best regards,
Krzysztof