Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@oss.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
	Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <pjw@kernel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>,
	Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Nick Terrell <terrelln@fb.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
	patches@lists.linux.dev,
	Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@gmail.com>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
	Song Shuai <songshuaishuai@tinylab.org>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/16] arm64: drtm: Add macro definitions for DEN0113
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2026 15:27:36 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260926182736.GA473004@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260924172952.0000527e@oss.qualcomm.com>

On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 05:29:52PM -0700, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> This one at least does it via base and sum.  But that then separates it from
> the spec?   That is sort of the case anyway because the spec has the full
> number.  0xC400_0110 so I guess not too bad.

I wasn't sure what to do with this since the spec had the full hex and
we have these helper macros.. I made it look more like something else
with the offset style instead of the function call style:

> > +#define ARM_DRTM_SMC_VERSION			(ARM_DRTM_SMC_FN_BASE + 0x00)

IDK, maybe ARM_DRTM_SMC_FN_BASE(0x110) is more connected to the spec,
but I'm used to doing it like this from ioctl land which is very
similar.


> > +#define ARM_DRTM_FEATURE_SELECTOR	BIT_U64(63)
> > +#define ARM_DRTM_FEATURE_TPM		0x01
> > +#define ARM_DRTM_FEATURE_MIN_MEMORY	0x02
> > +#define ARM_DRTM_FEATURE_DMA_PROTECTION	0x03
> > +#define ARM_DRTM_FEATURE_BOOT_PE	0x04
> > +#define ARM_DRTM_FEATURE_TCB_HASH	0x05
> > +#define ARM_DRTM_FEATURE_IMAGE_AUTH	0x06
>
> Nice to have a mask for the 8 bits of the feature field.

OK

> Also nice to keep order the same as the SMC defines which would put this after
> version.  That also puts it next to the values returned for each feature.

I reorganized everything

> > +#define ARM_DRTM_TPM_ALG_MASK		GENMASK_U64(15, 0)
> > +#define ARM_DRTM_TPM_HASHING		BIT_U64(32)
> > +#define ARM_DRTM_PCR_SCHEMA_MASK	GENMASK_U64(36, 33)
> > +#define ARM_DRTM_PCR_SCHEMA_DEFAULT	BIT_U64(33)
> > +#define ARM_DRTM_PCR_SCHEMA_AUTHORITIES	BIT_U64(34)
> 
> Ah.  Always love a field made up of a bunch of bits. Hard to define
> cleanly.   Do you actually need the PCR_SCHEMA_MASK?  

I did it with a field content which gets reused in the launch struct:

/*
 * PCR schema numbers. ARM_DRTM_PCR_SCHEMA_MASK is a bitmap indexed by these,
 * and the Launch Features ARM_DRTM_LAUNCH_PCR_SCHEMA_MASK field holds one.
 */
#define ARM_DRTM_PCR_SCHEMA_DEFAULT		0
#define ARM_DRTM_PCR_SCHEMA_AUTHORITIES		1

/*
 * DMA protection types. ARM_DRTM_DMA_PROTECTION_MASK is a bitmap indexed by
 * these, and the Launch Features ARM_DRTM_LAUNCH_DMA_PROTECTION_MASK field
 * holds one.
 */
#define ARM_DRTM_DMA_PROTECTION_COMPLETE	0
#define ARM_DRTM_DMA_PROTECTION_REGION		1

Have to use BIT() to get the bitmap encoding.

> Same here.  I vaguely wonder if it is worth adding something
> reflecting the relevant feature ID to each of these defines
> so we know what the are referring to?

I added comments and spec references for everything

> > +#define ARM_DRTM_LAUNCH_HASH_FIRMWARE	0
> > +#define ARM_DRTM_LAUNCH_HASH_TPM	BIT_U32(0)
> 
> I'd rather see them as fields and field value pairs but
> can see that is going to get a bit verbose.

I think that would be too verbose in this case, and the usage is very
limited.


> > +static inline s64 arm_drtm_features(u64 function_or_feature, u64 *value)
> > +{
> > +	struct arm_smccc_res res;
> > +	s64 status;
> > +
> > +	arm_smccc_1_1_smc(ARM_DRTM_SMC_FEATURES, function_or_feature,
> > +			  0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
> > +	status = res.a0;
> > +	if (status >= 0 && value)
> > +		*value = res.a1;
> If status == 0, is res.a1 useful?
> You have a helpful comment at the call site in the final patch but none
> the less I have read the spec section a couple of times and have no idea.

I read the spec as 0 is not allowed.

I changed this around to have two wrapper functions, which works a bit
better.

static inline s64 arm_drtm_query_function(u64 function_id)
{
	struct arm_smccc_res res;

	arm_smccc_1_1_smc(ARM_DRTM_SMC_FEATURES, function_id, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
			  &res);
	return res.a0;
}

/*
 * v1.4b Section 3.3.1 says:
 *   A return value of greater than 0 means the feature ID is
 *   implemented, and there are other feature-specific
 *   feature or capability bits available in other return value
 *   registers.
 * And for FEATURE_SELECTOR all defined features return data in other
 * registers, so 0 is not an allowed return.
 */
static inline s64 arm_drtm_query_feature(u64 feature, u64 *value)
{
	struct arm_smccc_res res;

	arm_smccc_1_1_smc(ARM_DRTM_SMC_FEATURES,
			  ARM_DRTM_FEATURE_SELECTOR |
				  FIELD_PREP(ARM_DRTM_FEATURE_ID_MASK, feature),
			  0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
	*value = res.a1;
	return res.a0;
}

Thanks,
Jason


  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-26 18:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-24 13:53 [PATCH 00/16] arm64: DRTM, boot portion Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 01/16] efi/libstub: Fix error unwind freeing fdt in allocate_new_fdt_and_exit_boot() Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 22:42   ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-09-24 23:44     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 02/16] efi/riscv: libstub: Don't set image_size in handle_kernel_image() Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 03/16] efi/libstub: Free cmdline_ptr in efi_pe_entry Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 22:49   ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-09-25 12:59     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-25 13:20       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 04/16] vmlinux.lds: Move DATA_LE32() from arm64 to the common linker script Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 22:53   ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-09-24 23:50     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-25 13:30       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 05/16] efi/libstub: Add a general way to get symbols from the vmlinux into zboot Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 06/16] arm64/efi: Use CONFIG_EFI_STUB_IMAGE_INFO for code_size Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 07/16] efi/zboot: Lift efi_cache_sync_image() from efi_zboot_decompress() Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 22:57   ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-09-24 23:53     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 08/16] efi/libstub: Add generic arch callbacks for DRTM Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 09/16] efi/libstub: Have efi_kaslr_relocate_kernel() handle extra_size Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 10/16] efi: Add a __efi_data_handoff section annotation Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 11/16] efi/libstub: Put the stub's writable data in unique sections for DRTM Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 12/16] arm64: drtm: Add macro definitions for DEN0113 Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-25  0:29   ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-09-26 18:27     ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 13/16] arm64: drtm: Update the linker script for EFI_STUB_DRTM Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 14/16] arm64: drtm: Add drtm_entry point to head.S Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 15/16] arm64: drtm: Call UNPROTECT_MEMORY Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24 13:53 ` [PATCH 16/16] efi/arm64: Implement ARM64 DRTM in the stub Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-25 18:37   ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-09-26 18:45     ` Jason Gunthorpe

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260926182736.GA473004@nvidia.com \
    --to=jgg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=alex@ghiti.fr \
    --cc=alexghiti@rivosinc.com \
    --cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=conor.dooley@microchip.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=dsterba@suse.com \
    --cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
    --cc=jonathan.cameron@oss.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=palmer@rivosinc.com \
    --cc=patches@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=pjw@kernel.org \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=ross.philipson@gmail.com \
    --cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
    --cc=sjg@chromium.org \
    --cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=songshuaishuai@tinylab.org \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=terrelln@fb.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox