From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8A8EC47DDF for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:11:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=lBIWNkIh1RCaqUIuS0TakEXFoDn3cRyge5DyYWNiw3k=; b=aj/Sp5+XE3Z6NC y9j8TVhhcHoQyEljYMYM7xOpI3+X3TcNQl0UtJJ+sWGuLGunSuYAJY4vTOlZpKStwbXtkJC3pgDAx WBlwJmV7qFHxFIXSKl8L8sWtAPGIo7xB5wjvWjqOWzbvi8rMfX1Ic2p00PSF0bzpKYNBgKFEMdM9B k4BJidWCyHuBEbGry0sLvBNicTNKVGdD1z1W/FrLmH1Qtxf5sDt9XycmILUqSclpdySeIpV91iHb0 Ls+jGAvsqz6hKnyXmohMujiNVA80J3Kc8P3SpBiMhHvYF8IdPTkEHE8RjgeGneCDuxbgHHquORtV3 S9jFqdejgyKbNBAJUgqQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rTPjc-00000004oZW-04nY; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:11:20 +0000 Received: from mail-pl1-x630.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::630]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rTPjZ-00000004oXg-0nOb for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:11:18 +0000 Received: by mail-pl1-x630.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1d76671e5a4so5345755ad.0 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:11:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1706289075; x=1706893875; darn=lists.infradead.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Bcmrpd25Eu3WOVR04Y5OIk5yOCebYwVXK+pO0q0F6mw=; b=hDyY5bE4gwIHsP9taOL2R+zml/MHgcfqEIktvQoLheZn20j5HJHPLYd8723AFk5DhG g7glQfLhQV6pFYVD217IDmtocPk8rdpG6MiY/DGOUCWUotlAtLBAzW+hWdGyYLTHr9Ea woioIXlfjEyepM12ToPz+3AKbW6Cdq/y8S7GRvteEGoEOctjtJ7vsuwU2LvwfKol3IW7 4vXaHxsxnMoCzMJMGbHS0D78XSSt/fES1Q297sbL+c79dVYJYKA6yMOzvOq3Bd1Scwzy PZC9vJW6uiC5uM5+sTsAjcDRnTOXMoG0s/UM0qd9m6XeHODMguV4bp3qKIsEZVmlSEUA byEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706289075; x=1706893875; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Bcmrpd25Eu3WOVR04Y5OIk5yOCebYwVXK+pO0q0F6mw=; b=Lk+27aPHpn86Tr6LdQQg2EGxurFWmqqYsy+LtlntAtgL1huj0E/4HttBcoVo0CqaDL xBJbzalJ5l177weyUEc5/FFRR7r2ErhkntW6yTIFmj4V+GJ24DJbIDS614BjSKVJMYyG pvNYKpnwtkf1d4TzI0bddqHzGgr28FHvjnqLFFifM+E1etUgKX2m7sMPeSDJ/AUxA3Gb Gu6j5S4BP4OpNL8v+FA05Hos6dA0bcbOq1V5IsNCq9onsJ03kOG5qKvFkARsnFdagL3I BvQFArC2k5ARptiofWNr4giL0b17YRqAsVmzm3m06L0lmiuWqrhbPBXfYgLvORVTiDh0 RgsA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxCLpsPqAA8q/2qOYAZM7jIAuF2InMy6aznr53Y/7+syuTMOzWU qe2Eu6JXXSsuusHzLLiBfrcmz7wmGKghsAGHPeu6t5TZQY7KnS2CrdW75Sve8jY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH5z9sKSNksJAUu83TwSp/rNEwRd7Og2IHYScnBP9tAbNauGL8Vlp/pDWgaLQsQX0ukE3j7ww== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e995:b0:1d7:35e0:2b5b with SMTP id f21-20020a170902e99500b001d735e02b5bmr52432plb.125.1706289075281; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:11:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from p14s ([2604:3d09:148c:c800:4ad7:9f92:4f45:da3f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v10-20020a170902d08a00b001d72f145ebdsm1175527plv.35.2024.01.26.09.11.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:11:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 10:11:12 -0700 From: Mathieu Poirier To: Arnaud Pouliquen Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Jens Wiklander , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] remoteproc: stm32: Add support of an OP-TEE TA to load the firmware Message-ID: References: <20240118100433.3984196-1-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> <20240118100433.3984196-5-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240118100433.3984196-5-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240126_091117_284681_181CB403 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 40.14 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:04:33AM +0100, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote: > The new TEE remoteproc device is used to manage remote firmware in a > secure, trusted context. The 'st,stm32mp1-m4-tee' compatibility is > introduced to delegate the loading of the firmware to the trusted > execution context. In such cases, the firmware should be signed and > adhere to the image format defined by the TEE. > > Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen > --- > V1 to V2 update: > - remove the select "TEE_REMOTEPROC" in STM32_RPROC config as detected by > the kernel test robot: > WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for TEE_REMOTEPROC > Depends on [n]: REMOTEPROC [=y] && OPTEE [=n] > Selected by [y]: > - STM32_RPROC [=y] && (ARCH_STM32 || COMPILE_TEST [=y]) && REMOTEPROC [=y] > - Fix initialized trproc variable in stm32_rproc_probe > --- > drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 149 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 144 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c > index fcc0001e2657..cf6a21bac945 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > #include > > #include "remoteproc_internal.h" > @@ -49,6 +50,9 @@ > #define M4_STATE_STANDBY 4 > #define M4_STATE_CRASH 5 > > +/* Remote processor unique identifier aligned with the Trusted Execution Environment definitions */ > +#define STM32_MP1_M4_PROC_ID 0 > + > struct stm32_syscon { > struct regmap *map; > u32 reg; > @@ -90,6 +94,8 @@ struct stm32_rproc { > struct stm32_mbox mb[MBOX_NB_MBX]; > struct workqueue_struct *workqueue; > bool hold_boot_smc; > + bool fw_loaded; > + struct tee_rproc *trproc; > void __iomem *rsc_va; > }; > > @@ -257,6 +263,91 @@ static int stm32_rproc_release(struct rproc *rproc) > return err; > } > > +static int stm32_rproc_tee_elf_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc, > + const struct firmware *fw) > +{ > + struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv; > + unsigned int ret = 0; > + > + if (rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED) > + return 0; > + > + ret = tee_rproc_load_fw(ddata->trproc, fw); > + if (!ret) > + ddata->fw_loaded = true; > + > + return ret; > +} > + > +static int stm32_rproc_tee_elf_load(struct rproc *rproc, > + const struct firmware *fw) > +{ > + struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv; > + unsigned int ret; > + > + /* > + * This function can be called by remote proc for recovery > + * without the sanity check. In this case we need to load the firmware > + * else nothing done here as the firmware has been preloaded for the > + * sanity check to be able to parse it for the resource table. > + */ This comment is very confusing - please consider refactoring. > + if (ddata->fw_loaded) > + return 0; > + I'm not sure about keeping a flag to indicate the status of the loaded firmware. It is not done for the non-secure method, I don't see why it would be needed for the secure one. > + ret = tee_rproc_load_fw(ddata->trproc, fw); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + ddata->fw_loaded = true; > + > + /* Update the resource table parameters. */ > + if (rproc_tee_get_rsc_table(ddata->trproc)) { > + /* No resource table: reset the related fields. */ > + rproc->cached_table = NULL; > + rproc->table_ptr = NULL; > + rproc->table_sz = 0; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static struct resource_table * > +stm32_rproc_tee_elf_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc, > + const struct firmware *fw) > +{ > + struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv; > + > + return tee_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table(ddata->trproc); > +} > + > +static int stm32_rproc_tee_start(struct rproc *rproc) > +{ > + struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv; > + > + return tee_rproc_start(ddata->trproc); > +} > + > +static int stm32_rproc_tee_attach(struct rproc *rproc) > +{ > + /* Nothing to do, remote proc already started by the secured context. */ > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int stm32_rproc_tee_stop(struct rproc *rproc) > +{ > + struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv; > + int err; > + > + stm32_rproc_request_shutdown(rproc); > + > + err = tee_rproc_stop(ddata->trproc); > + if (err) > + return err; > + > + ddata->fw_loaded = false; > + > + return stm32_rproc_release(rproc); > +} > + > static int stm32_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc) > { > struct device *dev = rproc->dev.parent; > @@ -319,7 +410,14 @@ static int stm32_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc) > > static int stm32_rproc_parse_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) > { > - if (rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(rproc, fw)) > + struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv; > + int ret; > + > + if (ddata->trproc) > + ret = rproc_tee_get_rsc_table(ddata->trproc); > + else > + ret = rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(rproc, fw); > + if (ret) > dev_warn(&rproc->dev, "no resource table found for this firmware\n"); > > return 0; > @@ -693,8 +791,22 @@ static const struct rproc_ops st_rproc_ops = { > .get_boot_addr = rproc_elf_get_boot_addr, > }; > > +static const struct rproc_ops st_rproc_tee_ops = { > + .prepare = stm32_rproc_prepare, > + .start = stm32_rproc_tee_start, > + .stop = stm32_rproc_tee_stop, > + .attach = stm32_rproc_tee_attach, > + .kick = stm32_rproc_kick, > + .parse_fw = stm32_rproc_parse_fw, > + .find_loaded_rsc_table = stm32_rproc_tee_elf_find_loaded_rsc_table, > + .get_loaded_rsc_table = stm32_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table, > + .sanity_check = stm32_rproc_tee_elf_sanity_check, > + .load = stm32_rproc_tee_elf_load, > +}; > + > static const struct of_device_id stm32_rproc_match[] = { > - { .compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4" }, > + {.compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4",}, > + {.compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4-tee",}, > {}, > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, stm32_rproc_match); > @@ -853,6 +965,7 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > struct stm32_rproc *ddata; > struct device_node *np = dev->of_node; > + struct tee_rproc *trproc = NULL; > struct rproc *rproc; > unsigned int state; > int ret; > @@ -861,11 +974,31 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > if (ret) > return ret; > > - rproc = rproc_alloc(dev, np->name, &st_rproc_ops, NULL, sizeof(*ddata)); > - if (!rproc) > - return -ENOMEM; > + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "st,stm32mp1-m4-tee")) { > + trproc = tee_rproc_register(dev, STM32_MP1_M4_PROC_ID); > + if (IS_ERR(trproc)) { > + dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(trproc), > + "signed firmware not supported by TEE\n"); > + return PTR_ERR(trproc); > + } > + /* > + * Delegate the firmware management to the secure context. > + * The firmware loaded has to be signed. > + */ > + dev_info(dev, "Support of signed firmware only\n"); Not sure what this adds. Please remove. > + } > + rproc = rproc_alloc(dev, np->name, > + trproc ? &st_rproc_tee_ops : &st_rproc_ops, > + NULL, sizeof(*ddata)); > + if (!rproc) { > + ret = -ENOMEM; > + goto free_tee; > + } > > ddata = rproc->priv; > + ddata->trproc = trproc; > + if (trproc) > + trproc->rproc = rproc; > > rproc_coredump_set_elf_info(rproc, ELFCLASS32, EM_NONE); > > @@ -916,6 +1049,10 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > device_init_wakeup(dev, false); > } > rproc_free(rproc); > +free_tee: > + if (trproc) > + tee_rproc_unregister(trproc); > + > return ret; > } > > @@ -937,6 +1074,8 @@ static void stm32_rproc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > device_init_wakeup(dev, false); > } > rproc_free(rproc); > + if (ddata->trproc) > + tee_rproc_unregister(ddata->trproc); > } > > static int stm32_rproc_suspend(struct device *dev) > -- > 2.25.1 > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel