[PATCH v4 0/7] dma-buf: heaps: Add restricted heap

[PATCH v4 0/7] dma-buf: heaps: Add restricted heap

[Yong Wu]

The purpose of this patchset is for MediaTek secure video playback, and
also to enable other potential uses of this in the future. The 'restricted
dma-heap' will be used to allocate dma_buf objects that reference memory
in the secure world that is inaccessible/unmappable by the non-secure
(i.e. kernel/userspace) world.  That memory will be used by the secure/
trusted world to store secure information (i.e. decrypted media content).
The dma_bufs allocated from the kernel will be passed to V4L2 for video
decoding (as input and output). They will also be used by the drm
system for rendering of the content.

This patchset adds two MediaTek restricted heaps and they will be used in
v4l2[1] and drm[2].
1) restricted_mtk_cm: secure chunk memory for MediaTek SVP (Secure Video
   Path). The buffer is reserved for the secure world after bootup and it
   is used for vcodec's ES/working buffer;
2) restricted_mtk_cma: secure CMA memory for MediaTek SVP. This buffer is
   dynamically reserved for the secure world and will be got when we start
   playing secure videos. Once the security video playing is complete, the
   CMA will be released. This heap is used for the vcodec's frame buffer. 

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mediatek/20231206081538.17056-1-yunfei.dong@mediatek.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231223182932.27683-1-jason-jh.lin@mediatek.com/

Change note:
v4: 1) Rename the heap name from "secure" to "restricted". suggested from
     Simon/Pekka. There are still several "secure" string in MTK file
     since we use ARM platform in which we call this "secure world"/
     "secure command".

v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mediatek/20231212024607.3681-1-yong.wu@mediatek.com/
    1) Separate the secure heap to a common file(secure_heap.c) and mtk
     special file (secure_heap_mtk.c),  and put all the tee related code
     into our special file.
    2) About dt-binding, Add "mediatek," prefix since this is Mediatek TEE
     firmware definition.
    3) Remove the normal CMA heap which is a draft for qcom.
    Rebase on v6.7-rc1.

v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mediatek/20231111111559.8218-1-yong.wu@mediatek.com/
    1) Move John's patches into the vcodec patchset since they use the new
       dma heap interface directly.
       https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mediatek/20231106120423.23364-1-yunfei.dong@mediatek.com/
    2) Reword the dt-binding description.
    3) Rename the heap name from mtk_svp to secure_mtk_cm.
       This means the current vcodec/DRM upstream code doesn't match this.
    4) Add a normal CMA heap. currently it should be a draft version.
    5) Regarding the UUID, I still use hard code, but put it in a private
    data which allow the others could set their own UUID. What's more, UUID
    is necessary for the session with TEE. If we don't have it, we can't
    communicate with the TEE, including the get_uuid interface, which tries
    to make uuid more generic, not working. If there is other way to make
    UUID more general, please free to tell me.
    
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mediatek/20230911023038.30649-1-yong.wu@mediatek.com/
    Base on v6.6-rc1.

Yong Wu (7):
  dt-bindings: reserved-memory: Add mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region
  dma-buf: heaps: Initialize a restricted heap
  dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add private heap ops
  dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add dma_ops
  dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add MediaTek restricted heap and
    heap_init
  dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap_mtk: Add TEE memory service call
  dma_buf: heaps: restricted_heap_mtk: Add a new CMA heap

 .../mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region.yaml   |  43 +++
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig                 |  16 +
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile                |   4 +-
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c       | 237 +++++++++++++
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h       |  43 +++
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c   | 322 ++++++++++++++++++
 6 files changed, 664 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region.yaml
 create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c

-- 
2.18.0

[PATCH v4 1/7] dt-bindings: reserved-memory: Add mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region

[Yong Wu]

Add a binding for describing the dynamic restricted reserved memory range.
The memory range also will be defined in the TEE firmware. It means the TEE
will be configured with the same address/size that is being set in this
DT node. Regarding to the detail TEE command, Please search
MTK_TZCMD_SECMEM_ZALLOC and MTK_TZCMD_SECMEM_FREE.

Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
---
 .../mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region.yaml   | 43 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region.yaml

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..5cbe3a5637fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/reserved-memory/mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: MediaTek Dynamic Reserved Region
+
+description:
+  A memory region that can dynamically transition as a whole between
+  secure and non-secure states. This memory will be protected by OP-TEE
+  when allocations are active and unprotected otherwise.
+
+maintainers:
+  - Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
+
+allOf:
+  - $ref: reserved-memory.yaml
+
+properties:
+  compatible:
+    const: mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region
+
+required:
+  - compatible
+  - reg
+  - reusable
+
+unevaluatedProperties: false
+
+examples:
+  - |
+    reserved-memory {
+        #address-cells = <1>;
+        #size-cells = <1>;
+        ranges;
+
+        reserved-memory@80000000 {
+            compatible = "mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region";
+            reg = <0x80000000 0x18000000>;
+            reusable;
+        };
+    };
-- 
2.25.1

[PATCH v4 2/7] dma-buf: heaps: Initialize a restricted heap

[Yong Wu]

Initialize a restricted heap. Currently just add a null heap, Prepare for
the later patches.

Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
---
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig           |  9 ++++
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile          |  3 +-
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h | 22 ++++++++
 4 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig
index a5eef06c4226..e54506f480ea 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig
@@ -12,3 +12,12 @@ config DMABUF_HEAPS_CMA
 	  Choose this option to enable dma-buf CMA heap. This heap is backed
 	  by the Contiguous Memory Allocator (CMA). If your system has these
 	  regions, you should say Y here.
+
+config DMABUF_HEAPS_RESTRICTED
+	bool "DMA-BUF Restricted Heap"
+	depends on DMABUF_HEAPS
+	help
+	  Choose this option to enable dma-buf restricted heap. The purpose of this
+	  heap is to manage buffers that are inaccessible to the kernel and user space.
+	  There may be several ways to restrict it, for example it may be encrypted or
+	  protected by a TEE or hypervisor. If in doubt, say N.
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile
index 974467791032..a2437c1817e2 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
-obj-$(CONFIG_DMABUF_HEAPS_SYSTEM)	+= system_heap.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_DMABUF_HEAPS_CMA)		+= cma_heap.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_DMABUF_HEAPS_RESTRICTED)	+= restricted_heap.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_DMABUF_HEAPS_SYSTEM)	+= system_heap.o
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..fd7c82abd42e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * DMABUF restricted heap exporter
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2024 MediaTek Inc.
+ */
+
+#include <linux/dma-buf.h>
+#include <linux/dma-heap.h>
+#include <linux/err.h>
+#include <linux/slab.h>
+
+#include "restricted_heap.h"
+
+static struct dma_buf *
+restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
+			 unsigned long fd_flags, unsigned long heap_flags)
+{
+	struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf;
+	DEFINE_DMA_BUF_EXPORT_INFO(exp_info);
+	struct dma_buf *dmabuf;
+	int ret;
+
+	restricted_buf = kzalloc(sizeof(*restricted_buf), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!restricted_buf)
+		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+
+	restricted_buf->size = ALIGN(size, PAGE_SIZE);
+	restricted_buf->heap = heap;
+
+	exp_info.exp_name = dma_heap_get_name(heap);
+	exp_info.size = restricted_buf->size;
+	exp_info.flags = fd_flags;
+	exp_info.priv = restricted_buf;
+
+	dmabuf = dma_buf_export(&exp_info);
+	if (IS_ERR(dmabuf)) {
+		ret = PTR_ERR(dmabuf);
+		goto err_free_buf;
+	}
+
+	return dmabuf;
+
+err_free_buf:
+	kfree(restricted_buf);
+	return ERR_PTR(ret);
+}
+
+static const struct dma_heap_ops restricted_heap_ops = {
+	.allocate = restricted_heap_allocate,
+};
+
+int restricted_heap_add(struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap)
+{
+	struct dma_heap_export_info exp_info;
+	struct dma_heap *heap;
+
+	exp_info.name = rstrd_heap->name;
+	exp_info.ops = &restricted_heap_ops;
+	exp_info.priv = (void *)rstrd_heap;
+
+	heap = dma_heap_add(&exp_info);
+	if (IS_ERR(heap))
+		return PTR_ERR(heap);
+	return 0;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(restricted_heap_add);
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..443028f6ba3b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
+/*
+ * Restricted heap Header.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2024 MediaTek, Inc.
+ */
+
+#ifndef _DMABUF_RESTRICTED_HEAP_H_
+#define _DMABUF_RESTRICTED_HEAP_H_
+
+struct restricted_buffer {
+	struct dma_heap		*heap;
+	size_t			size;
+};
+
+struct restricted_heap {
+	const char		*name;
+};
+
+int restricted_heap_add(struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap);
+
+#endif
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] dma-buf: heaps: Initialize a restricted heap

[Joakim Bech]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 05:20:09PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote:
> Initialize a restricted heap. Currently just add a null heap, Prepare for
> the later patches.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
> ---
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig           |  9 ++++
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile          |  3 +-
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h | 22 ++++++++
>  4 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
>  create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig
> index a5eef06c4226..e54506f480ea 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig
> @@ -12,3 +12,12 @@ config DMABUF_HEAPS_CMA
>  	  Choose this option to enable dma-buf CMA heap. This heap is backed
>  	  by the Contiguous Memory Allocator (CMA). If your system has these
>  	  regions, you should say Y here.
> +
> +config DMABUF_HEAPS_RESTRICTED
> +	bool "DMA-BUF Restricted Heap"
> +	depends on DMABUF_HEAPS
> +	help
> +	  Choose this option to enable dma-buf restricted heap. The purpose of this
> +	  heap is to manage buffers that are inaccessible to the kernel and user space.
> +	  There may be several ways to restrict it, for example it may be encrypted or
> +	  protected by a TEE or hypervisor. If in doubt, say N.
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile
> index 974467791032..a2437c1817e2 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile
> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
>  # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> -obj-$(CONFIG_DMABUF_HEAPS_SYSTEM)	+= system_heap.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_DMABUF_HEAPS_CMA)		+= cma_heap.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_DMABUF_HEAPS_RESTRICTED)	+= restricted_heap.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_DMABUF_HEAPS_SYSTEM)	+= system_heap.o
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..fd7c82abd42e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * DMABUF restricted heap exporter
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2024 MediaTek Inc.
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/dma-buf.h>
> +#include <linux/dma-heap.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +
> +#include "restricted_heap.h"
> +
> +static struct dma_buf *
> +restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
> +			 unsigned long fd_flags, unsigned long heap_flags)
> +{
> +	struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf;
> +	DEFINE_DMA_BUF_EXPORT_INFO(exp_info);
> +	struct dma_buf *dmabuf;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	restricted_buf = kzalloc(sizeof(*restricted_buf), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!restricted_buf)
> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> +	restricted_buf->size = ALIGN(size, PAGE_SIZE);
> +	restricted_buf->heap = heap;
> +
> +	exp_info.exp_name = dma_heap_get_name(heap);
> +	exp_info.size = restricted_buf->size;
> +	exp_info.flags = fd_flags;
> +	exp_info.priv = restricted_buf;
> +
> +	dmabuf = dma_buf_export(&exp_info);
> +	if (IS_ERR(dmabuf)) {
> +		ret = PTR_ERR(dmabuf);
> +		goto err_free_buf;
> +	}
> +
> +	return dmabuf;
> +
> +err_free_buf:
> +	kfree(restricted_buf);
> +	return ERR_PTR(ret);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct dma_heap_ops restricted_heap_ops = {
> +	.allocate = restricted_heap_allocate,
> +};
> +
> +int restricted_heap_add(struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap)
>
Nothing wrong, but what about shortening rstrd_heap throughout the patch
set to "rheap", I would find that easier to read.

> +{
> +	struct dma_heap_export_info exp_info;
> +	struct dma_heap *heap;
> +
> +	exp_info.name = rstrd_heap->name;
> +	exp_info.ops = &restricted_heap_ops;
> +	exp_info.priv = (void *)rstrd_heap;
> +
> +	heap = dma_heap_add(&exp_info);
> +	if (IS_ERR(heap))
> +		return PTR_ERR(heap);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(restricted_heap_add);
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..443028f6ba3b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> +/*
> + * Restricted heap Header.
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2024 MediaTek, Inc.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _DMABUF_RESTRICTED_HEAP_H_
> +#define _DMABUF_RESTRICTED_HEAP_H_
> +
> +struct restricted_buffer {
> +	struct dma_heap		*heap;
> +	size_t			size;
> +};
> +
> +struct restricted_heap {
> +	const char		*name;
> +};
> +
> +int restricted_heap_add(struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap);
> +
> +#endif
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

-- 
// Regards
Joakim

[PATCH v4 3/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add private heap ops

[Yong Wu]

Add "struct restricted_heap_ops". For the restricted memory, totally there
are two steps:
a) memory_alloc: Allocate the buffer in kernel;
b) memory_restrict: Restrict/Protect/Secure that buffer.
The memory_alloc is mandatory while memory_restrict is optinal since it may
be part of memory_alloc.

Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
---
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h | 12 ++++++++
 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
index fd7c82abd42e..8c266a0f6192 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
@@ -12,10 +12,44 @@
 
 #include "restricted_heap.h"
 
+static int
+restricted_heap_memory_allocate(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf)
+{
+	const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops = heap->ops;
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = ops->memory_alloc(heap, buf);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	if (ops->memory_restrict) {
+		ret = ops->memory_restrict(heap, buf);
+		if (ret)
+			goto memory_free;
+	}
+	return 0;
+
+memory_free:
+	ops->memory_free(heap, buf);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static void
+restricted_heap_memory_free(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf)
+{
+	const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops = heap->ops;
+
+	if (ops->memory_unrestrict)
+		ops->memory_unrestrict(heap, buf);
+
+	ops->memory_free(heap, buf);
+}
+
 static struct dma_buf *
 restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
 			 unsigned long fd_flags, unsigned long heap_flags)
 {
+	struct restricted_heap *restricted_heap = dma_heap_get_drvdata(heap);
 	struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf;
 	DEFINE_DMA_BUF_EXPORT_INFO(exp_info);
 	struct dma_buf *dmabuf;
@@ -28,6 +62,9 @@ restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
 	restricted_buf->size = ALIGN(size, PAGE_SIZE);
 	restricted_buf->heap = heap;
 
+	ret = restricted_heap_memory_allocate(restricted_heap, restricted_buf);
+	if (ret)
+		goto err_free_buf;
 	exp_info.exp_name = dma_heap_get_name(heap);
 	exp_info.size = restricted_buf->size;
 	exp_info.flags = fd_flags;
@@ -36,11 +73,13 @@ restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
 	dmabuf = dma_buf_export(&exp_info);
 	if (IS_ERR(dmabuf)) {
 		ret = PTR_ERR(dmabuf);
-		goto err_free_buf;
+		goto err_free_restricted_mem;
 	}
 
 	return dmabuf;
 
+err_free_restricted_mem:
+	restricted_heap_memory_free(restricted_heap, restricted_buf);
 err_free_buf:
 	kfree(restricted_buf);
 	return ERR_PTR(ret);
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
index 443028f6ba3b..ddeaf9805708 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
@@ -15,6 +15,18 @@ struct restricted_buffer {
 
 struct restricted_heap {
 	const char		*name;
+
+	const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops;
+};
+
+struct restricted_heap_ops {
+	int	(*heap_init)(struct restricted_heap *heap);
+
+	int	(*memory_alloc)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
+	void	(*memory_free)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
+
+	int	(*memory_restrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
+	void	(*memory_unrestrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
 };
 
 int restricted_heap_add(struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap);
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add private heap ops

[John Stultz]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:21 AM Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com> wrote:
>
> Add "struct restricted_heap_ops". For the restricted memory, totally there
> are two steps:
> a) memory_alloc: Allocate the buffer in kernel;
> b) memory_restrict: Restrict/Protect/Secure that buffer.
> The memory_alloc is mandatory while memory_restrict is optinal since it may
> be part of memory_alloc.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
> ---
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h | 12 ++++++++
>  2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>

Thanks for sending this out! A thought below.

> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> index 443028f6ba3b..ddeaf9805708 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> @@ -15,6 +15,18 @@ struct restricted_buffer {
>
>  struct restricted_heap {
>         const char              *name;
> +
> +       const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops;
> +};
> +
> +struct restricted_heap_ops {
> +       int     (*heap_init)(struct restricted_heap *heap);
> +
> +       int     (*memory_alloc)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> +       void    (*memory_free)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> +
> +       int     (*memory_restrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> +       void    (*memory_unrestrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
>  };
>
>  int restricted_heap_add(struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap);

So, I'm a little worried here, because you're basically turning the
restricted_heap dma-buf heap driver into a framework itself.
Where this patch is creating a subdriver framework.

Part of my hesitancy, is you're introducing this under the dma-buf
heaps. For things like CMA, that's more of a core subsystem that has
multiple users, and exporting cma buffers via dmabuf heaps is just an
additional interface.  What I like about that is the core kernel has
to define the semantics for the memory type and then the dmabuf heap
is just exporting that well understood type of buffer.

But with these restricted buffers, I'm not sure there's yet a well
understood set of semantics nor a central abstraction for that which
other drivers use directly.

I know part of this effort here is to start to centralize all these
vendor specific restricted buffer implementations, which I think is
great, but I just worry that in doing it in the dmabuf heap interface,
it is a bit too user-facing. The likelihood of encoding a particular
semantic to the singular "restricted_heap" name seems high.

Similarly we might run into systems with multiple types of restricted
buffers (imagine a discrete gpu having one type along with TEE
protected buffers also being used on the same system).

So the one question I have: Why not just have a mediatek specific
restricted_heap dmabuf heap driver?  Since there's already been some
talk of slight semantic differences in various restricted buffer
implementations, should we just start with separately named dmabuf
heaps for each? Maybe consolidating to a common name as more drivers
arrive and we gain a better understanding of the variations of
semantics folks are using?

thanks
-john

Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add private heap ops

[Jeffrey Kardatzke]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:52 PM John Stultz <jstultz@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:21 AM Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add "struct restricted_heap_ops". For the restricted memory, totally there
> > are two steps:
> > a) memory_alloc: Allocate the buffer in kernel;
> > b) memory_restrict: Restrict/Protect/Secure that buffer.
> > The memory_alloc is mandatory while memory_restrict is optinal since it may
> > be part of memory_alloc.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h | 12 ++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
>
> Thanks for sending this out! A thought below.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> > index 443028f6ba3b..ddeaf9805708 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> > @@ -15,6 +15,18 @@ struct restricted_buffer {
> >
> >  struct restricted_heap {
> >         const char              *name;
> > +
> > +       const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct restricted_heap_ops {
> > +       int     (*heap_init)(struct restricted_heap *heap);
> > +
> > +       int     (*memory_alloc)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> > +       void    (*memory_free)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> > +
> > +       int     (*memory_restrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> > +       void    (*memory_unrestrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> >  };
> >
> >  int restricted_heap_add(struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap);
>
> So, I'm a little worried here, because you're basically turning the
> restricted_heap dma-buf heap driver into a framework itself.
> Where this patch is creating a subdriver framework.
>
> Part of my hesitancy, is you're introducing this under the dma-buf
> heaps. For things like CMA, that's more of a core subsystem that has
> multiple users, and exporting cma buffers via dmabuf heaps is just an
> additional interface.  What I like about that is the core kernel has
> to define the semantics for the memory type and then the dmabuf heap
> is just exporting that well understood type of buffer.
>
> But with these restricted buffers, I'm not sure there's yet a well
> understood set of semantics nor a central abstraction for that which
> other drivers use directly.
>
> I know part of this effort here is to start to centralize all these
> vendor specific restricted buffer implementations, which I think is
> great, but I just worry that in doing it in the dmabuf heap interface,
> it is a bit too user-facing. The likelihood of encoding a particular
> semantic to the singular "restricted_heap" name seems high.

In patch #5 it has the actual driver implementation for the MTK heap
that includes the heap name of "restricted_mtk_cm", so there shouldn't
be a heap named "restricted_heap" that's actually getting exposed. The
restricted_heap code is a framework, and not a driver itself.  Unless
I'm missing something in this patchset...but that's the way it's
*supposed* to be.

>
> Similarly we might run into systems with multiple types of restricted
> buffers (imagine a discrete gpu having one type along with TEE
> protected buffers also being used on the same system).
>
> So the one question I have: Why not just have a mediatek specific
> restricted_heap dmabuf heap driver?  Since there's already been some
> talk of slight semantic differences in various restricted buffer
> implementations, should we just start with separately named dmabuf
> heaps for each? Maybe consolidating to a common name as more drivers
> arrive and we gain a better understanding of the variations of
> semantics folks are using?
>
> thanks
> -john

Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add private heap ops

[John Stultz]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:27 PM Jeffrey Kardatzke <jkardatzke@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:52 PM John Stultz <jstultz@google.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:21 AM Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> > > index 443028f6ba3b..ddeaf9805708 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> > > @@ -15,6 +15,18 @@ struct restricted_buffer {
> > >
> > >  struct restricted_heap {
> > >         const char              *name;
> > > +
> > > +       const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +struct restricted_heap_ops {
> > > +       int     (*heap_init)(struct restricted_heap *heap);
> > > +
> > > +       int     (*memory_alloc)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> > > +       void    (*memory_free)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> > > +
> > > +       int     (*memory_restrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> > > +       void    (*memory_unrestrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> > >  };
> > >
> > >  int restricted_heap_add(struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap);
> >
> > So, I'm a little worried here, because you're basically turning the
> > restricted_heap dma-buf heap driver into a framework itself.
> > Where this patch is creating a subdriver framework.
> >
> > Part of my hesitancy, is you're introducing this under the dma-buf
> > heaps. For things like CMA, that's more of a core subsystem that has
> > multiple users, and exporting cma buffers via dmabuf heaps is just an
> > additional interface.  What I like about that is the core kernel has
> > to define the semantics for the memory type and then the dmabuf heap
> > is just exporting that well understood type of buffer.
> >
> > But with these restricted buffers, I'm not sure there's yet a well
> > understood set of semantics nor a central abstraction for that which
> > other drivers use directly.
> >
> > I know part of this effort here is to start to centralize all these
> > vendor specific restricted buffer implementations, which I think is
> > great, but I just worry that in doing it in the dmabuf heap interface,
> > it is a bit too user-facing. The likelihood of encoding a particular
> > semantic to the singular "restricted_heap" name seems high.
>
> In patch #5 it has the actual driver implementation for the MTK heap
> that includes the heap name of "restricted_mtk_cm", so there shouldn't
> be a heap named "restricted_heap" that's actually getting exposed. The

Ah, I appreciate that clarification! Indeed, you're right the name is
passed through. Apologies for missing that detail.

> restricted_heap code is a framework, and not a driver itself.  Unless
> I'm missing something in this patchset...but that's the way it's
> *supposed* to be.

So I guess I'm not sure I understand the benefit of the extra
indirection. What then does the restricted_heap.c logic itself
provide?
The dmabuf heaps framework already provides a way to add heap implementations.

thanks
-john

Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add private heap ops

[Jeffrey Kardatzke]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:51 PM John Stultz <jstultz@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:27 PM Jeffrey Kardatzke <jkardatzke@google.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:52 PM John Stultz <jstultz@google.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:21 AM Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> > > > index 443028f6ba3b..ddeaf9805708 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> > > > @@ -15,6 +15,18 @@ struct restricted_buffer {
> > > >
> > > >  struct restricted_heap {
> > > >         const char              *name;
> > > > +
> > > > +       const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +struct restricted_heap_ops {
> > > > +       int     (*heap_init)(struct restricted_heap *heap);
> > > > +
> > > > +       int     (*memory_alloc)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> > > > +       void    (*memory_free)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> > > > +
> > > > +       int     (*memory_restrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> > > > +       void    (*memory_unrestrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> > > >  };
> > > >
> > > >  int restricted_heap_add(struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap);
> > >
> > > So, I'm a little worried here, because you're basically turning the
> > > restricted_heap dma-buf heap driver into a framework itself.
> > > Where this patch is creating a subdriver framework.
> > >
> > > Part of my hesitancy, is you're introducing this under the dma-buf
> > > heaps. For things like CMA, that's more of a core subsystem that has
> > > multiple users, and exporting cma buffers via dmabuf heaps is just an
> > > additional interface.  What I like about that is the core kernel has
> > > to define the semantics for the memory type and then the dmabuf heap
> > > is just exporting that well understood type of buffer.
> > >
> > > But with these restricted buffers, I'm not sure there's yet a well
> > > understood set of semantics nor a central abstraction for that which
> > > other drivers use directly.
> > >
> > > I know part of this effort here is to start to centralize all these
> > > vendor specific restricted buffer implementations, which I think is
> > > great, but I just worry that in doing it in the dmabuf heap interface,
> > > it is a bit too user-facing. The likelihood of encoding a particular
> > > semantic to the singular "restricted_heap" name seems high.
> >
> > In patch #5 it has the actual driver implementation for the MTK heap
> > that includes the heap name of "restricted_mtk_cm", so there shouldn't
> > be a heap named "restricted_heap" that's actually getting exposed. The
>
> Ah, I appreciate that clarification! Indeed, you're right the name is
> passed through. Apologies for missing that detail.
>
> > restricted_heap code is a framework, and not a driver itself.  Unless
> > I'm missing something in this patchset...but that's the way it's
> > *supposed* to be.
>
> So I guess I'm not sure I understand the benefit of the extra
> indirection. What then does the restricted_heap.c logic itself
> provide?
> The dmabuf heaps framework already provides a way to add heap implementations.

So in the v1 patchset, it was done with just a Mediatek specific heap
with no framework or abstractions for another vendor to build on top
of. The feedback was to make this more generic since Mediatek won't be
the only vendor who wants a restricted heap..which is how it ended up
here. There was more code in the framework before relating to TEE
calls, but then that was moved to the vendor specific code since not
all restricted heaps are allocated through a TEE.

This was also desirable for the V4L2 pieces since there's going to be
a V4L2 flag set when using restricted dma_bufs (and it wants to
validate that)....so in order to keep that more generic, there should
be a higher level concept of restricted dma_bufs that isn't specific
to a single vendor.  One other thing that would ideally come out of
this is a cleaner way to check that a dma_buf is restricted or not.
The current V4L2 patchset just attaches the dma_buf and then checks if
the page table is empty....and if so, it's restricted. But now I see
there's other feedback indicating attaching a restricted dma_buf
shouldn't even be allowed, so we'll need another strategy for
detecting them. Ideally there is some function/macro like
is_dma_buf_restricted(struct dma_buf*) that can indicate that...but we
haven't come up with a good way to do that yet which doesn't involve
adding another field to dma_buf or to dma_buf_ops (and if such a thing
would be fine, then OK...but I had assumed we would get pushback on
modifying either of those structs).

>
> thanks
> -john

Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add private heap ops

[John Stultz]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 4:13 PM Jeffrey Kardatzke <jkardatzke@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:51 PM John Stultz <jstultz@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:27 PM Jeffrey Kardatzke <jkardatzke@google.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:52 PM John Stultz <jstultz@google.com> wrote:
> > > > I know part of this effort here is to start to centralize all these
> > > > vendor specific restricted buffer implementations, which I think is
> > > > great, but I just worry that in doing it in the dmabuf heap interface,
> > > > it is a bit too user-facing. The likelihood of encoding a particular
> > > > semantic to the singular "restricted_heap" name seems high.
> > >
> > > In patch #5 it has the actual driver implementation for the MTK heap
> > > that includes the heap name of "restricted_mtk_cm", so there shouldn't
> > > be a heap named "restricted_heap" that's actually getting exposed. The
> >
> > Ah, I appreciate that clarification! Indeed, you're right the name is
> > passed through. Apologies for missing that detail.
> >
> > > restricted_heap code is a framework, and not a driver itself.  Unless
> > > I'm missing something in this patchset...but that's the way it's
> > > *supposed* to be.
> >
> > So I guess I'm not sure I understand the benefit of the extra
> > indirection. What then does the restricted_heap.c logic itself
> > provide?
> > The dmabuf heaps framework already provides a way to add heap implementations.
>
> So in the v1 patchset, it was done with just a Mediatek specific heap
> with no framework or abstractions for another vendor to build on top
> of. The feedback was to make this more generic since Mediatek won't be
> the only vendor who wants a restricted heap..which is how it ended up
> here. There was more code in the framework before relating to TEE
> calls, but then that was moved to the vendor specific code since not
> all restricted heaps are allocated through a TEE.

Yeah. I apologize, as I know how frustrating the contradictory
feedback can be. I don't mean to demotivate. :(

I think folks would very much like to see consolidation around the
various implementations, and I agree!
I just worry that creating the common framework for this concept in a
dmabuf heaps driver is maybe too peripheral/close to userland.

> This was also desirable for the V4L2 pieces since there's going to be
> a V4L2 flag set when using restricted dma_bufs (and it wants to
> validate that)....so in order to keep that more generic, there should
> be a higher level concept of restricted dma_bufs that isn't specific
> to a single vendor.  One other thing that would ideally come out of
> this is a cleaner way to check that a dma_buf is restricted or not.

Yeah. If there is a clear meaning to "restricted" here, I think having
a query method on the dmabuf is reasonable.
My only fret is if the meaning is too vague and userland starts
depending on it meaning what it meant for vendor1, but doesn't mean
for vendor2.

So we need some clarity in what "restricted" really means.  For
instance, it being not cpu mappable vs other potential variations like
being cpu mappable, but not cpu accessible.  Or not cpu mappable, but
only mappable between a set of 3 devices (Which 3 devices?! How can we
tell?).

And if there is variation, maybe we need to enumerate the types of
"restricted" buffers so we can be specific when it's queried.

That's where maybe having the framework for this be more central or
closer to the kernel mm code and not just a sub-type of a dmabuf heap
driver might be better?

> The current V4L2 patchset just attaches the dma_buf and then checks if
> the page table is empty....and if so, it's restricted. But now I see
> there's other feedback indicating attaching a restricted dma_buf
> shouldn't even be allowed, so we'll need another strategy for
> detecting them. Ideally there is some function/macro like
> is_dma_buf_restricted(struct dma_buf*) that can indicate that...but we
> haven't come up with a good way to do that yet which doesn't involve
> adding another field to dma_buf or to dma_buf_ops (and if such a thing
> would be fine, then OK...but I had assumed we would get pushback on
> modifying either of those structs).

If there's a need and the best place to put something is in the
dma_buf or dma_buf_ops, that's where it should go.  Folks may
reasonably disagree if it's the best place (there may be yet better
spots for the state to sit in the abstractions), but for stuff going
upstream, there's no reason to try to hack around things or smuggle
state just to avoid changing core structures. Especially if core
structures are internal only and have no ABI implications.

Sima's suggestion that attachments should fail if the device cannot
properly map the restricted buffer makes sense to me. Though I don't
quite see why all attachments should fail, and I don't really like the
idea of a private api, but I need to look more at the suggested virtio
example (but even they said that wasn't their preferred route).

My sense of attach was only that it was supposed to connect a device's
interest in the buffer, allowing lazy allocation to satisfy various
device constraints before first mapping - a design feature that I
don't think anyone ever implemented.  So my sense was it didn't have
much meaning otherwise (but was a requirement to call before map). But
that may have evolved since the early days.

And I'm sure the method to figure out if the attachment can work with
the device may be complicated/difficult, so it sounding reasonable can
be far from it being reasonable to implement.

And again, I don't mean to frustrate or demotivate here. I'm really
excited to see this effort being pushed upstream!

thanks
-john

Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add private heap ops

[Joakim Bech]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 05:23:07PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 4:13 PM Jeffrey Kardatzke <jkardatzke@google.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:51 PM John Stultz <jstultz@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:27 PM Jeffrey Kardatzke <jkardatzke@google.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:52 PM John Stultz <jstultz@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > I know part of this effort here is to start to centralize all these
> > > > > vendor specific restricted buffer implementations, which I think is
> > > > > great, but I just worry that in doing it in the dmabuf heap interface,
> > > > > it is a bit too user-facing. The likelihood of encoding a particular
> > > > > semantic to the singular "restricted_heap" name seems high.
> > > >
> > > > In patch #5 it has the actual driver implementation for the MTK heap
> > > > that includes the heap name of "restricted_mtk_cm", so there shouldn't
> > > > be a heap named "restricted_heap" that's actually getting exposed. The
> > >
> > > Ah, I appreciate that clarification! Indeed, you're right the name is
> > > passed through. Apologies for missing that detail.
> > >
> > > > restricted_heap code is a framework, and not a driver itself.  Unless
> > > > I'm missing something in this patchset...but that's the way it's
> > > > *supposed* to be.
> > >
> > > So I guess I'm not sure I understand the benefit of the extra
> > > indirection. What then does the restricted_heap.c logic itself
> > > provide?
> > > The dmabuf heaps framework already provides a way to add heap implementations.
> >
> > So in the v1 patchset, it was done with just a Mediatek specific heap
> > with no framework or abstractions for another vendor to build on top
> > of. The feedback was to make this more generic since Mediatek won't be
> > the only vendor who wants a restricted heap..which is how it ended up
> > here. There was more code in the framework before relating to TEE
> > calls, but then that was moved to the vendor specific code since not
> > all restricted heaps are allocated through a TEE.
> 
> Yeah. I apologize, as I know how frustrating the contradictory
> feedback can be. I don't mean to demotivate. :(
> 
> I think folks would very much like to see consolidation around the
> various implementations, and I agree!
> I just worry that creating the common framework for this concept in a
> dmabuf heaps driver is maybe too peripheral/close to userland.
> 
> > This was also desirable for the V4L2 pieces since there's going to be
> > a V4L2 flag set when using restricted dma_bufs (and it wants to
> > validate that)....so in order to keep that more generic, there should
> > be a higher level concept of restricted dma_bufs that isn't specific
> > to a single vendor.  One other thing that would ideally come out of
> > this is a cleaner way to check that a dma_buf is restricted or not.
> 
> Yeah. If there is a clear meaning to "restricted" here, I think having
> a query method on the dmabuf is reasonable.
> My only fret is if the meaning is too vague and userland starts
> depending on it meaning what it meant for vendor1, but doesn't mean
> for vendor2.
> 
> So we need some clarity in what "restricted" really means.  For
> instance, it being not cpu mappable vs other potential variations like
> being cpu mappable, but not cpu accessible.  Or not cpu mappable, but
> only mappable between a set of 3 devices (Which 3 devices?! How can we
> tell?).
> 
Can we flip things around? I.e., instead of saying which devices are
allowed to use the restricted buffer, can we instead say where it's not
allowed to be used? My view has been that by default the contents of the
types of buffers where talking about here is only accessible to things
running on the secure side, i.e, typically S-EL3, S-EL1 and a specific
Trusted Application running in S-EL0. I guess that serves as some kind
of baseline. 

From there, things turns to a more dynamic nature, where firewalls etc,
can be configured to give access to various IPs, blocks and runtimes.

I understand that it's nice to be able to know all this from the Linux
kernel point of view, but does it have to be aware of this? What's the
major drawback if Linux doesn't know about it?

> And if there is variation, maybe we need to enumerate the types of
> "restricted" buffers so we can be specific when it's queried.
> 
> That's where maybe having the framework for this be more central or
> closer to the kernel mm code and not just a sub-type of a dmabuf heap
> driver might be better?
> 
> > The current V4L2 patchset just attaches the dma_buf and then checks if
> > the page table is empty....and if so, it's restricted. But now I see
> > there's other feedback indicating attaching a restricted dma_buf
> > shouldn't even be allowed, so we'll need another strategy for
> > detecting them. Ideally there is some function/macro like
> > is_dma_buf_restricted(struct dma_buf*) that can indicate that...but we
> > haven't come up with a good way to do that yet which doesn't involve
> > adding another field to dma_buf or to dma_buf_ops (and if such a thing
> > would be fine, then OK...but I had assumed we would get pushback on
> > modifying either of those structs).
> 
> If there's a need and the best place to put something is in the
> dma_buf or dma_buf_ops, that's where it should go.  Folks may
> reasonably disagree if it's the best place (there may be yet better
> spots for the state to sit in the abstractions), but for stuff going
> upstream, there's no reason to try to hack around things or smuggle
> state just to avoid changing core structures. Especially if core
> structures are internal only and have no ABI implications.
> 
> Sima's suggestion that attachments should fail if the device cannot
> properly map the restricted buffer makes sense to me. Though I don't
> quite see why all attachments should fail, and I don't really like the
> idea of a private api, but I need to look more at the suggested virtio
> example (but even they said that wasn't their preferred route).
> 
> My sense of attach was only that it was supposed to connect a device's
> interest in the buffer, allowing lazy allocation to satisfy various
> device constraints before first mapping - a design feature that I
> don't think anyone ever implemented.  So my sense was it didn't have
> much meaning otherwise (but was a requirement to call before map). But
> that may have evolved since the early days.
> 
> And I'm sure the method to figure out if the attachment can work with
> the device may be complicated/difficult, so it sounding reasonable can
> be far from it being reasonable to implement.
> 
> And again, I don't mean to frustrate or demotivate here. I'm really
> excited to see this effort being pushed upstream!
> 
> thanks
> -john

-- 
// Regards
Joakim

Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add private heap ops

[John Stultz]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 6:15 AM Joakim Bech <joakim.bech@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 05:23:07PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> > So we need some clarity in what "restricted" really means.  For
> > instance, it being not cpu mappable vs other potential variations like
> > being cpu mappable, but not cpu accessible.  Or not cpu mappable, but
> > only mappable between a set of 3 devices (Which 3 devices?! How can we
> > tell?).
> >
> Can we flip things around? I.e., instead of saying which devices are
> allowed to use the restricted buffer, can we instead say where it's not
> allowed to be used? My view has been that by default the contents of the
> types of buffers where talking about here is only accessible to things
> running on the secure side, i.e, typically S-EL3, S-EL1 and a specific
> Trusted Application running in S-EL0. I guess that serves as some kind
> of baseline.

? This seems like you're suggesting enumerating badness? I'm not sure
I understand the benefit of that.

> From there, things turns to a more dynamic nature, where firewalls etc,
> can be configured to give access to various IPs, blocks and runtimes.
>
> I understand that it's nice to be able to know all this from the Linux
> kernel point of view, but does it have to be aware of this? What's the
> major drawback if Linux doesn't know about it?

Indeed, it doesn't necessarily. The idea with DMABUF heaps is it
provides a name to abstract/wrap a type of constraint. So you can then
allocate buffers that satisfy that constraint.

Admittedly the downside with DMABUF heaps is that it has a bit of a
gap in the abstraction in that we don't have a mapping of device
constraints, so in Android gralloc provides a device specific
usage/pipeline -> heap mapping.
(Note: This I don't think is very problematic - I often use the
example of fstab as device-specific config everyone is comfortable
with - but I know folks would like to have something more generic)

I believe Christian has previously proposed to have the devices
provide something like symlinks from their sysfs  nodes to the heaps
the device supports, which is an interesting idea to mostly close that
issue. Applications could then scan the devices in a pipeline and find
the type they all support, and the specific names wouldn't matter.

However, I'd expect the same hardware pipeline might support both
restricted and unrestricted playback, so there would need to be some
way to differentiate for the use case, so I'm not sure you can get
away from some heap name to functionality mapping.

My main concern with this patch series is that it seems to want to
bundle all the different types of "restricted" buffers that might be
possible under a single "restricted" heap name.

Since we likely have devices with different security domains, thus
different types of restrictions. So we may need to be able to
differentiate between "secure video playback" uses and "protected
device firmware" uses on the same machine. Thus, I'm not sure it's a
good idea to bundle all of these under the same heap name.

thanks
-john

Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add private heap ops

[Joakim Bech]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 05:20:10PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote:
> Add "struct restricted_heap_ops". For the restricted memory, totally there
> are two steps:
> a) memory_alloc: Allocate the buffer in kernel;
> b) memory_restrict: Restrict/Protect/Secure that buffer.
> The memory_alloc is mandatory while memory_restrict is optinal since it may
>
s/optinal/optional/

> be part of memory_alloc.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
> ---
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h | 12 ++++++++
>  2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> index fd7c82abd42e..8c266a0f6192 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> @@ -12,10 +12,44 @@
>  
>  #include "restricted_heap.h"
>  
> +static int
> +restricted_heap_memory_allocate(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf)
> +{
> +	const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops = heap->ops;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = ops->memory_alloc(heap, buf);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	if (ops->memory_restrict) {
> +		ret = ops->memory_restrict(heap, buf);
> +		if (ret)
> +			goto memory_free;
> +	}
> +	return 0;
> +
> +memory_free:
> +	ops->memory_free(heap, buf);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void
> +restricted_heap_memory_free(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf)
> +{
> +	const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops = heap->ops;
> +
> +	if (ops->memory_unrestrict)
> +		ops->memory_unrestrict(heap, buf);
> +
> +	ops->memory_free(heap, buf);
> +}
> +
>  static struct dma_buf *
>  restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
>  			 unsigned long fd_flags, unsigned long heap_flags)
>  {
> +	struct restricted_heap *restricted_heap = dma_heap_get_drvdata(heap);
>  	struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf;
>  	DEFINE_DMA_BUF_EXPORT_INFO(exp_info);
>  	struct dma_buf *dmabuf;
> @@ -28,6 +62,9 @@ restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
>  	restricted_buf->size = ALIGN(size, PAGE_SIZE);
>  	restricted_buf->heap = heap;
>  
> +	ret = restricted_heap_memory_allocate(restricted_heap, restricted_buf);
>
Can we guarantee that "restricted_heap" here isn't NULL (i.e., heap->priv). If
not perhaps we should consider adding a check for NULL in the
restricted_heap_memory_allocate() function?

> +	if (ret)
> +		goto err_free_buf;
>  	exp_info.exp_name = dma_heap_get_name(heap);
>  	exp_info.size = restricted_buf->size;
>  	exp_info.flags = fd_flags;
> @@ -36,11 +73,13 @@ restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
>  	dmabuf = dma_buf_export(&exp_info);
>  	if (IS_ERR(dmabuf)) {
>  		ret = PTR_ERR(dmabuf);
> -		goto err_free_buf;
> +		goto err_free_restricted_mem;
>  	}
>  
>  	return dmabuf;
>  
> +err_free_restricted_mem:
> +	restricted_heap_memory_free(restricted_heap, restricted_buf);
>  err_free_buf:
>  	kfree(restricted_buf);
>  	return ERR_PTR(ret);
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> index 443028f6ba3b..ddeaf9805708 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> @@ -15,6 +15,18 @@ struct restricted_buffer {
>  
>  struct restricted_heap {
>  	const char		*name;
> +
> +	const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops;
> +};
> +
> +struct restricted_heap_ops {
>
This have the same name as used for the dma_heap_ops in the file
restricted_heap.c, this might be a little bit confusing, or?

> +	int	(*heap_init)(struct restricted_heap *heap);
> +
> +	int	(*memory_alloc)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> +	void	(*memory_free)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> +
> +	int	(*memory_restrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
> +	void	(*memory_unrestrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf);
>
Is the prefix "memory_" superfluous here in these ops?

Also related to a comment on the prior patch. The name here is "heap" for
restricted_heap, but below you use rstrd_heap. It's the same struct, so I would
advise to use the same name to avoid confusion when reading the code. As
mentioned before, I think the name "rheap" would be a good choice.

>  };
>  
>  int restricted_heap_add(struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap);
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

-- 
// Regards
Joakim

Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add private heap ops

[Yong Wu (吴勇)]

Hi Joakim,

Sorry for reply so late.

On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 14:53 +0100, Joakim Bech wrote:
>  	 
> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
> you have verified the sender or the content.
>  On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 05:20:10PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote:
> > Add "struct restricted_heap_ops". For the restricted memory,
> totally there
> > are two steps:
> > a) memory_alloc: Allocate the buffer in kernel;
> > b) memory_restrict: Restrict/Protect/Secure that buffer.
> > The memory_alloc is mandatory while memory_restrict is optinal
> since it may
> >
> s/optinal/optional/

Will Fix.

> 
> > be part of memory_alloc.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c | 41
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h | 12 ++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c b/drivers/dma-
> buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> > index fd7c82abd42e..8c266a0f6192 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> > @@ -12,10 +12,44 @@
> >  
> >  #include "restricted_heap.h"
> >  
> > +static int
> > +restricted_heap_memory_allocate(struct restricted_heap *heap,
> struct restricted_buffer *buf)
> > +{
> > +const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops = heap->ops;
> > +int ret;
> > +
> > +ret = ops->memory_alloc(heap, buf);
> > +if (ret)
> > +return ret;
> > +
> > +if (ops->memory_restrict) {
> > +ret = ops->memory_restrict(heap, buf);
> > +if (ret)
> > +goto memory_free;
> > +}
> > +return 0;
> > +
> > +memory_free:
> > +ops->memory_free(heap, buf);
> > +return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void
> > +restricted_heap_memory_free(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct
> restricted_buffer *buf)
> > +{
> > +const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops = heap->ops;
> > +
> > +if (ops->memory_unrestrict)
> > +ops->memory_unrestrict(heap, buf);
> > +
> > +ops->memory_free(heap, buf);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static struct dma_buf *
> >  restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long
> size,
> >   unsigned long fd_flags, unsigned long heap_flags)
> >  {
> > +struct restricted_heap *restricted_heap =
> dma_heap_get_drvdata(heap);
> >  struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf;
> >  DEFINE_DMA_BUF_EXPORT_INFO(exp_info);
> >  struct dma_buf *dmabuf;
> > @@ -28,6 +62,9 @@ restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap,
> unsigned long size,
> >  restricted_buf->size = ALIGN(size, PAGE_SIZE);
> >  restricted_buf->heap = heap;
> >  
> > +ret = restricted_heap_memory_allocate(restricted_heap,
> restricted_buf);
> >
> Can we guarantee that "restricted_heap" here isn't NULL (i.e., heap-
> >priv). If
> not perhaps we should consider adding a check for NULL in the
> restricted_heap_memory_allocate() function?

heap->priv always is set when dma_heap_add is called. Suppose heap-
>priv is NULL, the KE would have already been occurred in
restricted_heap_add. I don't think it can be NULL. is it right?

> 
> > +if (ret)
> > +goto err_free_buf;
> >  exp_info.exp_name = dma_heap_get_name(heap);
> >  exp_info.size = restricted_buf->size;
> >  exp_info.flags = fd_flags;
> > @@ -36,11 +73,13 @@ restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap,
> unsigned long size,
> >  dmabuf = dma_buf_export(&exp_info);
> >  if (IS_ERR(dmabuf)) {
> >  ret = PTR_ERR(dmabuf);
> > -goto err_free_buf;
> > +goto err_free_restricted_mem;
> >  }
> >  
> >  return dmabuf;
> >  
> > +err_free_restricted_mem:
> > +restricted_heap_memory_free(restricted_heap, restricted_buf);
> >  err_free_buf:
> >  kfree(restricted_buf);
> >  return ERR_PTR(ret);
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h b/drivers/dma-
> buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> > index 443028f6ba3b..ddeaf9805708 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
> > @@ -15,6 +15,18 @@ struct restricted_buffer {
> >  
> >  struct restricted_heap {
> >  const char*name;
> > +
> > +const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct restricted_heap_ops {
> >
> This have the same name as used for the dma_heap_ops in the file
> restricted_heap.c, this might be a little bit confusing, or?

Thanks very much. I really didn't notice this. I will rename it.

> 
> > +int(*heap_init)(struct restricted_heap *heap);
> > +
> > +int(*memory_alloc)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct
> restricted_buffer *buf);
> > +void(*memory_free)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct
> restricted_buffer *buf);
> > +
> > +int(*memory_restrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct
> restricted_buffer *buf);
> > +void(*memory_unrestrict)(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct
> restricted_buffer *buf);
> >
> Is the prefix "memory_" superfluous here in these ops?

I will remove "memory_".  But it looks like the "restrict" is a
keyword, I can't use it or it will build fail. Therefore I plan to use
alloc/free/restrict_buf/unrestrict_buf in next version.

> 
> Also related to a comment on the prior patch. The name here is "heap"
> for
> restricted_heap, but below you use rstrd_heap. It's the same struct,
> so I would
> advise to use the same name to avoid confusion when reading the code.
> As
> mentioned before, I think the name "rheap" would be a good choice.

I will use "rheap" to replace everywhere.

Thanks.

> 
> >  };
> >  
> >  int restricted_heap_add(struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap);
> > -- 
> > 2.25.1
> > 
> 
> -- 
> // Regards
> Joakim

[PATCH v4 4/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add dma_ops

[Yong Wu]

Add the dma_ops for this restricted heap. For restricted buffer,
cache_ops/mmap are not allowed, thus return EPERM for them.

Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
---
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c | 103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 103 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
index 8c266a0f6192..ec4c63d2112d 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
@@ -12,6 +12,10 @@
 
 #include "restricted_heap.h"
 
+struct restricted_heap_attachment {
+	struct sg_table			*table;
+};
+
 static int
 restricted_heap_memory_allocate(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf)
 {
@@ -45,6 +49,104 @@ restricted_heap_memory_free(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buff
 	ops->memory_free(heap, buf);
 }
 
+static int restricted_heap_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
+{
+	struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf = dmabuf->priv;
+	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a;
+	struct sg_table *table;
+	int ret;
+
+	a = kzalloc(sizeof(*a), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!a)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	table = kzalloc(sizeof(*table), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!table) {
+		ret = -ENOMEM;
+		goto err_free_attach;
+	}
+
+	ret = sg_alloc_table(table, 1, GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (ret)
+		goto err_free_sgt;
+	sg_set_page(table->sgl, NULL, restricted_buf->size, 0);
+
+	a->table = table;
+	attachment->priv = a;
+
+	return 0;
+
+err_free_sgt:
+	kfree(table);
+err_free_attach:
+	kfree(a);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static void restricted_heap_detach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
+{
+	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
+
+	sg_free_table(a->table);
+	kfree(a->table);
+	kfree(a);
+}
+
+static struct sg_table *
+restricted_heap_map_dma_buf(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment, enum dma_data_direction direct)
+{
+	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
+	struct sg_table *table = a->table;
+
+	return table;
+}
+
+static void
+restricted_heap_unmap_dma_buf(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment, struct sg_table *table,
+			      enum dma_data_direction direction)
+{
+	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
+
+	WARN_ON(a->table != table);
+}
+
+static int
+restricted_heap_dma_buf_begin_cpu_access(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, enum dma_data_direction direction)
+{
+	return -EPERM;
+}
+
+static int
+restricted_heap_dma_buf_end_cpu_access(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, enum dma_data_direction direction)
+{
+	return -EPERM;
+}
+
+static int restricted_heap_dma_buf_mmap(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
+{
+	return -EPERM;
+}
+
+static void restricted_heap_free(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
+{
+	struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf = dmabuf->priv;
+	struct restricted_heap *heap = dma_heap_get_drvdata(restricted_buf->heap);
+
+	restricted_heap_memory_free(heap, restricted_buf);
+	kfree(restricted_buf);
+}
+
+static const struct dma_buf_ops restricted_heap_buf_ops = {
+	.attach		= restricted_heap_attach,
+	.detach		= restricted_heap_detach,
+	.map_dma_buf	= restricted_heap_map_dma_buf,
+	.unmap_dma_buf	= restricted_heap_unmap_dma_buf,
+	.begin_cpu_access = restricted_heap_dma_buf_begin_cpu_access,
+	.end_cpu_access	= restricted_heap_dma_buf_end_cpu_access,
+	.mmap		= restricted_heap_dma_buf_mmap,
+	.release	= restricted_heap_free,
+};
+
 static struct dma_buf *
 restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
 			 unsigned long fd_flags, unsigned long heap_flags)
@@ -66,6 +168,7 @@ restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
 	if (ret)
 		goto err_free_buf;
 	exp_info.exp_name = dma_heap_get_name(heap);
+	exp_info.ops = &restricted_heap_buf_ops;
 	exp_info.size = restricted_buf->size;
 	exp_info.flags = fd_flags;
 	exp_info.priv = restricted_buf;
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add dma_ops

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 05:20:11PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote:
> Add the dma_ops for this restricted heap. For restricted buffer,
> cache_ops/mmap are not allowed, thus return EPERM for them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
> ---
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c | 103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 103 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> index 8c266a0f6192..ec4c63d2112d 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,10 @@
>  
>  #include "restricted_heap.h"
>  
> +struct restricted_heap_attachment {
> +	struct sg_table			*table;
> +};
> +
>  static int
>  restricted_heap_memory_allocate(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf)
>  {
> @@ -45,6 +49,104 @@ restricted_heap_memory_free(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buff
>  	ops->memory_free(heap, buf);
>  }
>  
> +static int restricted_heap_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
> +{
> +	struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf = dmabuf->priv;
> +	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a;
> +	struct sg_table *table;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	a = kzalloc(sizeof(*a), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!a)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	table = kzalloc(sizeof(*table), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!table) {
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +		goto err_free_attach;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = sg_alloc_table(table, 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto err_free_sgt;
> +	sg_set_page(table->sgl, NULL, restricted_buf->size, 0);

So this is definitely broken and violating the dma-buf api rules. You
cannot let attach succed and supply a dummy/invalid sg table.

Two options:

- Reject ->attach for all this buffers with -EBUSY and provide instead a
  private api for these secure buffers, similar to how virtio_dma_buf has
  private virto-specific apis. This interface would need to be
  standardized across all arm TEE users, so that we don't have a
  disastrous proliferation of apis.

- Allow ->attach, but _only_ for drivers/devices which can access the
  secure buffer correctly, and only if you can put the right secure buffer
  address into the sg table directly. If dma to a secure buffer for a
  given struct device * will not work correctly (i.e. without data
  corruption), you _must_ reject the attach attempt with -EBUSY.

The 2nd approach would be my preferred one, if it's technically possible.

Also my understanding is that arm TEE is standardized, so I think we'll at
least want some acks from other soc people whether this will work for them
too.

Finally the usual drill:
- this also needs the driver side support, if there's any changes needed.
  Just the new heap isn't enough.
- and for drm you need open userspace for this. Doesn't have to be the
  full content protection decode pipeline, the drivers in drm that landed
  secure buffer support thus far enabled it using the
  EGL_EXT_protected_content extension using gl, which side steps all the
  complications around content decryption keys and support

Cheers, Sima

> +
> +	a->table = table;
> +	attachment->priv = a;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +
> +err_free_sgt:
> +	kfree(table);
> +err_free_attach:
> +	kfree(a);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void restricted_heap_detach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
> +{
> +	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
> +
> +	sg_free_table(a->table);
> +	kfree(a->table);
> +	kfree(a);
> +}
> +
> +static struct sg_table *
> +restricted_heap_map_dma_buf(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment, enum dma_data_direction direct)
> +{
> +	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
> +	struct sg_table *table = a->table;
> +
> +	return table;
> +}
> +
> +static void
> +restricted_heap_unmap_dma_buf(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment, struct sg_table *table,
> +			      enum dma_data_direction direction)
> +{
> +	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
> +
> +	WARN_ON(a->table != table);
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +restricted_heap_dma_buf_begin_cpu_access(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, enum dma_data_direction direction)
> +{
> +	return -EPERM;
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +restricted_heap_dma_buf_end_cpu_access(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, enum dma_data_direction direction)
> +{
> +	return -EPERM;
> +}
> +
> +static int restricted_heap_dma_buf_mmap(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +{
> +	return -EPERM;
> +}
> +
> +static void restricted_heap_free(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
> +{
> +	struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf = dmabuf->priv;
> +	struct restricted_heap *heap = dma_heap_get_drvdata(restricted_buf->heap);
> +
> +	restricted_heap_memory_free(heap, restricted_buf);
> +	kfree(restricted_buf);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct dma_buf_ops restricted_heap_buf_ops = {
> +	.attach		= restricted_heap_attach,
> +	.detach		= restricted_heap_detach,
> +	.map_dma_buf	= restricted_heap_map_dma_buf,
> +	.unmap_dma_buf	= restricted_heap_unmap_dma_buf,
> +	.begin_cpu_access = restricted_heap_dma_buf_begin_cpu_access,
> +	.end_cpu_access	= restricted_heap_dma_buf_end_cpu_access,
> +	.mmap		= restricted_heap_dma_buf_mmap,
> +	.release	= restricted_heap_free,
> +};
> +
>  static struct dma_buf *
>  restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
>  			 unsigned long fd_flags, unsigned long heap_flags)
> @@ -66,6 +168,7 @@ restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto err_free_buf;
>  	exp_info.exp_name = dma_heap_get_name(heap);
> +	exp_info.ops = &restricted_heap_buf_ops;
>  	exp_info.size = restricted_buf->size;
>  	exp_info.flags = fd_flags;
>  	exp_info.priv = restricted_buf;
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add dma_ops

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 10:41:14AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 05:20:11PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote:
> > Add the dma_ops for this restricted heap. For restricted buffer,
> > cache_ops/mmap are not allowed, thus return EPERM for them.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c | 103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 103 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> > index 8c266a0f6192..ec4c63d2112d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> > @@ -12,6 +12,10 @@
> >  
> >  #include "restricted_heap.h"
> >  
> > +struct restricted_heap_attachment {
> > +	struct sg_table			*table;
> > +};
> > +
> >  static int
> >  restricted_heap_memory_allocate(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf)
> >  {
> > @@ -45,6 +49,104 @@ restricted_heap_memory_free(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buff
> >  	ops->memory_free(heap, buf);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int restricted_heap_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
> > +{
> > +	struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf = dmabuf->priv;
> > +	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a;
> > +	struct sg_table *table;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	a = kzalloc(sizeof(*a), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!a)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	table = kzalloc(sizeof(*table), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!table) {
> > +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> > +		goto err_free_attach;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	ret = sg_alloc_table(table, 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto err_free_sgt;
> > +	sg_set_page(table->sgl, NULL, restricted_buf->size, 0);
> 
> So this is definitely broken and violating the dma-buf api rules. You
> cannot let attach succed and supply a dummy/invalid sg table.
> 
> Two options:
> 
> - Reject ->attach for all this buffers with -EBUSY and provide instead a
>   private api for these secure buffers, similar to how virtio_dma_buf has
>   private virto-specific apis. This interface would need to be
>   standardized across all arm TEE users, so that we don't have a
>   disastrous proliferation of apis.
> 
> - Allow ->attach, but _only_ for drivers/devices which can access the
>   secure buffer correctly, and only if you can put the right secure buffer
>   address into the sg table directly. If dma to a secure buffer for a
>   given struct device * will not work correctly (i.e. without data
>   corruption), you _must_ reject the attach attempt with -EBUSY.
> 
> The 2nd approach would be my preferred one, if it's technically possible.
> 
> Also my understanding is that arm TEE is standardized, so I think we'll at
> least want some acks from other soc people whether this will work for them
> too.
> 
> Finally the usual drill:
> - this also needs the driver side support, if there's any changes needed.
>   Just the new heap isn't enough.

Ok I quickly scrolled through your drm patches and that confirms that the
current dma-buf interface you're implementing is just completely breaking
the api. And you need to paper over that will all kinds of very icky
special-casing.

So definitely need to rethink the overall design between dma-buf heaps and
drivers here.
-Sima

> - and for drm you need open userspace for this. Doesn't have to be the
>   full content protection decode pipeline, the drivers in drm that landed
>   secure buffer support thus far enabled it using the
>   EGL_EXT_protected_content extension using gl, which side steps all the
>   complications around content decryption keys and support
> 
> Cheers, Sima
> 
> > +
> > +	a->table = table;
> > +	attachment->priv = a;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +
> > +err_free_sgt:
> > +	kfree(table);
> > +err_free_attach:
> > +	kfree(a);
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void restricted_heap_detach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
> > +{
> > +	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
> > +
> > +	sg_free_table(a->table);
> > +	kfree(a->table);
> > +	kfree(a);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct sg_table *
> > +restricted_heap_map_dma_buf(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment, enum dma_data_direction direct)
> > +{
> > +	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
> > +	struct sg_table *table = a->table;
> > +
> > +	return table;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void
> > +restricted_heap_unmap_dma_buf(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment, struct sg_table *table,
> > +			      enum dma_data_direction direction)
> > +{
> > +	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
> > +
> > +	WARN_ON(a->table != table);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +restricted_heap_dma_buf_begin_cpu_access(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, enum dma_data_direction direction)
> > +{
> > +	return -EPERM;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +restricted_heap_dma_buf_end_cpu_access(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, enum dma_data_direction direction)
> > +{
> > +	return -EPERM;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int restricted_heap_dma_buf_mmap(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > +{
> > +	return -EPERM;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void restricted_heap_free(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
> > +{
> > +	struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf = dmabuf->priv;
> > +	struct restricted_heap *heap = dma_heap_get_drvdata(restricted_buf->heap);
> > +
> > +	restricted_heap_memory_free(heap, restricted_buf);
> > +	kfree(restricted_buf);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct dma_buf_ops restricted_heap_buf_ops = {
> > +	.attach		= restricted_heap_attach,
> > +	.detach		= restricted_heap_detach,
> > +	.map_dma_buf	= restricted_heap_map_dma_buf,
> > +	.unmap_dma_buf	= restricted_heap_unmap_dma_buf,
> > +	.begin_cpu_access = restricted_heap_dma_buf_begin_cpu_access,
> > +	.end_cpu_access	= restricted_heap_dma_buf_end_cpu_access,
> > +	.mmap		= restricted_heap_dma_buf_mmap,
> > +	.release	= restricted_heap_free,
> > +};
> > +
> >  static struct dma_buf *
> >  restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
> >  			 unsigned long fd_flags, unsigned long heap_flags)
> > @@ -66,6 +168,7 @@ restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		goto err_free_buf;
> >  	exp_info.exp_name = dma_heap_get_name(heap);
> > +	exp_info.ops = &restricted_heap_buf_ops;
> >  	exp_info.size = restricted_buf->size;
> >  	exp_info.flags = fd_flags;
> >  	exp_info.priv = restricted_buf;
> > -- 
> > 2.25.1
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add dma_ops

[Yong Wu (吴勇)]

On Fri, 2024-01-12 at 10:49 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>  	 
> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
> you have verified the sender or the content.
>  On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 10:41:14AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 05:20:11PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote:
> > > Add the dma_ops for this restricted heap. For restricted buffer,
> > > cache_ops/mmap are not allowed, thus return EPERM for them.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c | 103
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 103 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> > > index 8c266a0f6192..ec4c63d2112d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
> > > @@ -12,6 +12,10 @@
> > >  
> > >  #include "restricted_heap.h"
> > >  
> > > +struct restricted_heap_attachment {
> > > +struct sg_table*table;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > >  static int
> > >  restricted_heap_memory_allocate(struct restricted_heap *heap,
> struct restricted_buffer *buf)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -45,6 +49,104 @@ restricted_heap_memory_free(struct
> restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buff
> > >  ops->memory_free(heap, buf);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static int restricted_heap_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct
> dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
> > > +{
> > > +struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf = dmabuf->priv;
> > > +struct restricted_heap_attachment *a;
> > > +struct sg_table *table;
> > > +int ret;
> > > +
> > > +a = kzalloc(sizeof(*a), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +if (!a)
> > > +return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > +table = kzalloc(sizeof(*table), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +if (!table) {
> > > +ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > +goto err_free_attach;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +ret = sg_alloc_table(table, 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +if (ret)
> > > +goto err_free_sgt;
> > > +sg_set_page(table->sgl, NULL, restricted_buf->size, 0);
> > 
> > So this is definitely broken and violating the dma-buf api rules.
> You
> > cannot let attach succed and supply a dummy/invalid sg table.
> > 
> > Two options:
> > 
> > - Reject ->attach for all this buffers with -EBUSY and provide
> instead a
> >   private api for these secure buffers, similar to how
> virtio_dma_buf has
> >   private virto-specific apis. This interface would need to be
> >   standardized across all arm TEE users, so that we don't have a
> >   disastrous proliferation of apis.
> > 
> > - Allow ->attach, but _only_ for drivers/devices which can access
> the
> >   secure buffer correctly, and only if you can put the right secure
> buffer
> >   address into the sg table directly. If dma to a secure buffer for
> a
> >   given struct device * will not work correctly (i.e. without data
> >   corruption), you _must_ reject the attach attempt with -EBUSY.
> > 
> > The 2nd approach would be my preferred one, if it's technically
> possible.
> > 
> > Also my understanding is that arm TEE is standardized, so I think
> we'll at
> > least want some acks from other soc people whether this will work
> for them
> > too.
> > 
> > Finally the usual drill:
> > - this also needs the driver side support, if there's any changes
> needed.
> >   Just the new heap isn't enough.
> 
> Ok I quickly scrolled through your drm patches and that confirms that
> the
> current dma-buf interface you're implementing is just completely
> breaking
> the api. And you need to paper over that will all kinds of very icky
> special-casing.
> 
> So definitely need to rethink the overall design between dma-buf
> heaps and
> drivers here.

Hi,

Thanks very much for the review, and sorry for reply so late.  We
reconstructed our TEE commands so that the kernel can obtain the valid
PA/pages, then the sg operations can run normally. 

I will send the next version.
Thanks.

> -Sima
> 
> > - and for drm you need open userspace for this. Doesn't have to be
> the
> >   full content protection decode pipeline, the drivers in drm that
> landed
> >   secure buffer support thus far enabled it using the
> >   EGL_EXT_protected_content extension using gl, which side steps
> all the
> >   complications around content decryption keys and support
> > 
> > Cheers, Sima
> > 
> > > +
> > > +a->table = table;
> > > +attachment->priv = a;
> > > +
> > > +return 0;
> > > +
> > > +err_free_sgt:
> > > +kfree(table);
> > > +err_free_attach:
> > > +kfree(a);
> > > +return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void restricted_heap_detach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
> struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment)
> > > +{
> > > +struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
> > > +
> > > +sg_free_table(a->table);
> > > +kfree(a->table);
> > > +kfree(a);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static struct sg_table *
> > > +restricted_heap_map_dma_buf(struct dma_buf_attachment
> *attachment, enum dma_data_direction direct)
> > > +{
> > > +struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
> > > +struct sg_table *table = a->table;
> > > +
> > > +return table;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void
> > > +restricted_heap_unmap_dma_buf(struct dma_buf_attachment
> *attachment, struct sg_table *table,
> > > +      enum dma_data_direction direction)
> > > +{
> > > +struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
> > > +
> > > +WARN_ON(a->table != table);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int
> > > +restricted_heap_dma_buf_begin_cpu_access(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
> enum dma_data_direction direction)
> > > +{
> > > +return -EPERM;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int
> > > +restricted_heap_dma_buf_end_cpu_access(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
> enum dma_data_direction direction)
> > > +{
> > > +return -EPERM;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int restricted_heap_dma_buf_mmap(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
> struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > +{
> > > +return -EPERM;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void restricted_heap_free(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
> > > +{
> > > +struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf = dmabuf->priv;
> > > +struct restricted_heap *heap =
> dma_heap_get_drvdata(restricted_buf->heap);
> > > +
> > > +restricted_heap_memory_free(heap, restricted_buf);
> > > +kfree(restricted_buf);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static const struct dma_buf_ops restricted_heap_buf_ops = {
> > > +.attach= restricted_heap_attach,
> > > +.detach= restricted_heap_detach,
> > > +.map_dma_buf= restricted_heap_map_dma_buf,
> > > +.unmap_dma_buf= restricted_heap_unmap_dma_buf,
> > > +.begin_cpu_access = restricted_heap_dma_buf_begin_cpu_access,
> > > +.end_cpu_access= restricted_heap_dma_buf_end_cpu_access,
> > > +.mmap= restricted_heap_dma_buf_mmap,
> > > +.release= restricted_heap_free,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > >  static struct dma_buf *
> > >  restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long
> size,
> > >   unsigned long fd_flags, unsigned long heap_flags)
> > > @@ -66,6 +168,7 @@ restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap
> *heap, unsigned long size,
> > >  if (ret)
> > >  goto err_free_buf;
> > >  exp_info.exp_name = dma_heap_get_name(heap);
> > > +exp_info.ops = &restricted_heap_buf_ops;
> > >  exp_info.size = restricted_buf->size;
> > >  exp_info.flags = fd_flags;
> > >  exp_info.priv = restricted_buf;
> > > -- 
> > > 2.25.1
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Daniel Vetter
> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> 

[PATCH v4 5/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add MediaTek restricted heap and heap_init

[Yong Wu]

Add a Mediatek restricted heap which uses TEE service call to restrict
buffer. Currently this restricted heap is NULL, Prepare for the later
patch. Mainly there are two changes:
a) Add a heap_init ops since TEE probe late than restricted heap, thus
   initialize the heap when we require the buffer the first time.
b) Add a priv_data for each heap, like the special data used by MTK
   (such as "TEE session") can be placed in priv_data.

Currently our heap depends on CMA which could only be bool, thus
depend on "TEE=y".

Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
---
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig               |   7 ++
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile              |   1 +
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c     |  11 ++
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h     |   2 +
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 134 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig
index e54506f480ea..84f748fb2856 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig
@@ -21,3 +21,10 @@ config DMABUF_HEAPS_RESTRICTED
 	  heap is to manage buffers that are inaccessible to the kernel and user space.
 	  There may be several ways to restrict it, for example it may be encrypted or
 	  protected by a TEE or hypervisor. If in doubt, say N.
+
+config DMABUF_HEAPS_RESTRICTED_MTK
+	bool "MediaTek DMA-BUF Restricted Heap"
+	depends on DMABUF_HEAPS_RESTRICTED && TEE=y
+	help
+	  Enable restricted dma-buf heaps for MediaTek platform. This heap is backed by
+	  TEE client interfaces. If in doubt, say N.
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile
index a2437c1817e2..0028aa9d875f 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 obj-$(CONFIG_DMABUF_HEAPS_CMA)		+= cma_heap.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_DMABUF_HEAPS_RESTRICTED)	+= restricted_heap.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_DMABUF_HEAPS_RESTRICTED_MTK)	+= restricted_heap_mtk.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_DMABUF_HEAPS_SYSTEM)	+= system_heap.o
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
index ec4c63d2112d..4e9869ab4a85 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
@@ -152,11 +152,22 @@ restricted_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, unsigned long size,
 			 unsigned long fd_flags, unsigned long heap_flags)
 {
 	struct restricted_heap *restricted_heap = dma_heap_get_drvdata(heap);
+	const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops = restricted_heap->ops;
 	struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf;
 	DEFINE_DMA_BUF_EXPORT_INFO(exp_info);
 	struct dma_buf *dmabuf;
 	int ret;
 
+	/*
+	 * In some implements, TEE is required to protect buffer. However TEE probe
+	 * may be late, Thus heap_init is performed when the first buffer is requested.
+	 */
+	if (ops->heap_init) {
+		ret = ops->heap_init(restricted_heap);
+		if (ret)
+			return ERR_PTR(ret);
+	}
+
 	restricted_buf = kzalloc(sizeof(*restricted_buf), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!restricted_buf)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
index ddeaf9805708..cf5865f829fc 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ struct restricted_heap {
 	const char		*name;
 
 	const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops;
+
+	void			*priv_data;
 };
 
 struct restricted_heap_ops {
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..a5f5365059cd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * DMABUF restricted heap exporter for MediaTek
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2024 MediaTek Inc.
+ */
+#include <linux/dma-buf.h>
+#include <linux/err.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/slab.h>
+#include <linux/tee_drv.h>
+#include <linux/uuid.h>
+
+#include "restricted_heap.h"
+
+#define TZ_TA_MEM_UUID_MTK		"4477588a-8476-11e2-ad15-e41f1390d676"
+
+#define TEE_PARAM_NUM			4
+
+enum mtk_secure_mem_type {
+	/*
+	 * MediaTek static chunk memory carved out for TrustZone. The memory
+	 * management is inside the TEE.
+	 */
+	MTK_SECURE_MEMORY_TYPE_CM_TZ	= 1,
+};
+
+struct mtk_restricted_heap_data {
+	struct tee_context	*tee_ctx;
+	u32			tee_session;
+
+	const enum mtk_secure_mem_type mem_type;
+
+};
+
+static int mtk_tee_ctx_match(struct tee_ioctl_version_data *ver, const void *data)
+{
+	return ver->impl_id == TEE_IMPL_ID_OPTEE;
+}
+
+static int mtk_tee_session_init(struct mtk_restricted_heap_data *data)
+{
+	struct tee_param t_param[TEE_PARAM_NUM] = {0};
+	struct tee_ioctl_open_session_arg arg = {0};
+	uuid_t ta_mem_uuid;
+	int ret;
+
+	data->tee_ctx = tee_client_open_context(NULL, mtk_tee_ctx_match, NULL, NULL);
+	if (IS_ERR(data->tee_ctx)) {
+		pr_err_once("%s: open context failed, ret=%ld\n", __func__,
+			    PTR_ERR(data->tee_ctx));
+		return -ENODEV;
+	}
+
+	arg.num_params = TEE_PARAM_NUM;
+	arg.clnt_login = TEE_IOCTL_LOGIN_PUBLIC;
+	ret = uuid_parse(TZ_TA_MEM_UUID_MTK, &ta_mem_uuid);
+	if (ret)
+		goto close_context;
+	memcpy(&arg.uuid, &ta_mem_uuid.b, sizeof(ta_mem_uuid));
+
+	ret = tee_client_open_session(data->tee_ctx, &arg, t_param);
+	if (ret < 0 || arg.ret) {
+		pr_err_once("%s: open session failed, ret=%d:%d\n",
+			    __func__, ret, arg.ret);
+		ret = -EINVAL;
+		goto close_context;
+	}
+	data->tee_session = arg.session;
+	return 0;
+
+close_context:
+	tee_client_close_context(data->tee_ctx);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static int mtk_restricted_heap_init(struct restricted_heap *heap)
+{
+	struct mtk_restricted_heap_data *data = heap->priv_data;
+
+	if (!data->tee_ctx)
+		return mtk_tee_session_init(data);
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static const struct restricted_heap_ops mtk_restricted_heap_ops = {
+	.heap_init		= mtk_restricted_heap_init,
+};
+
+static struct mtk_restricted_heap_data mtk_restricted_heap_data = {
+	.mem_type		= MTK_SECURE_MEMORY_TYPE_CM_TZ,
+};
+
+static struct restricted_heap mtk_restricted_heaps[] = {
+	{
+		.name		= "restricted_mtk_cm",
+		.ops		= &mtk_restricted_heap_ops,
+		.priv_data	= &mtk_restricted_heap_data,
+	},
+};
+
+static int mtk_restricted_heap_initialize(void)
+{
+	struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap = mtk_restricted_heaps;
+	unsigned int i;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mtk_restricted_heaps); i++, rstrd_heap++)
+		restricted_heap_add(rstrd_heap);
+	return 0;
+}
+module_init(mtk_restricted_heap_initialize);
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("MediaTek Restricted Heap Driver");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
-- 
2.25.1

[PATCH v4 6/7] dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap_mtk: Add TEE memory service call

[Yong Wu]

Add TEE service call for MediaTek heap. We have a limited number of
hardware entries to protect memory, therefore we cannot protect memory
arbitrarily, and our secure memory management is actually inside OPTEE.

The kernel just tells the TEE what size I want and the TEE will return a
"secure handle"/"secure address". To make the name more general, We call
it "restricted_addr" here. The restricted_addr is a reference to a secure
buffer within TEE. We put it in the sg_dma_address, please see the comment
in code.

Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
---
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c     | 17 ++++
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h     |  3 +
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 113 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
index 4e9869ab4a85..148dbf5662c2 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
@@ -96,8 +96,23 @@ static struct sg_table *
 restricted_heap_map_dma_buf(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment, enum dma_data_direction direct)
 {
 	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
+	struct dma_buf *dmabuf = attachment->dmabuf;
+	struct restricted_buffer *restricted_buf = dmabuf->priv;
 	struct sg_table *table = a->table;
 
+	/*
+	 * Technically dma_address refers to the address used by HW, But for restricted buffer
+	 * we don't know its dma_address in kernel, Instead, we may know its restricted address
+	 * which refers to the real buffer in the trusted or secure world. Here use this property
+	 * to save the restricted address, and the user will use it to obtain the real address in
+	 * trusted or secure world.
+	 *
+	 * Note: CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG requires this to be aligned with PAGE_SIZE.
+	 */
+	if (restricted_buf->restricted_addr) {
+		sg_dma_address(table->sgl) = restricted_buf->restricted_addr;
+		sg_dma_len(table->sgl) = restricted_buf->size;
+	}
 	return table;
 }
 
@@ -108,6 +123,8 @@ restricted_heap_unmap_dma_buf(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment, struct sg_t
 	struct restricted_heap_attachment *a = attachment->priv;
 
 	WARN_ON(a->table != table);
+	sg_dma_address(table->sgl) = 0;
+	sg_dma_len(table->sgl) = 0;
 }
 
 static int
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
index cf5865f829fc..6c93f6d257dc 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
@@ -11,6 +11,9 @@
 struct restricted_buffer {
 	struct dma_heap		*heap;
 	size_t			size;
+
+	/* A reference to a buffer in the trusted or secure world. */
+	u64			restricted_addr;
 };
 
 struct restricted_heap {
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c
index a5f5365059cd..902add95bb7e 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c
@@ -25,6 +25,27 @@ enum mtk_secure_mem_type {
 	MTK_SECURE_MEMORY_TYPE_CM_TZ	= 1,
 };
 
+enum mtk_secure_buffer_tee_cmd {
+	/*
+	 * Allocate the zeroed secure memory from TEE.
+	 *
+	 * [in]  value[0].a: The buffer size.
+	 *       value[0].b: alignment.
+	 * [in]  value[1].a: enum mtk_secure_mem_type.
+	 * [out] value[3].a: The secure handle.
+	 */
+	MTK_TZCMD_SECMEM_ZALLOC	= 0x10000, /* MTK TEE Command ID Base */
+
+	/*
+	 * Free secure memory.
+	 *
+	 * [in]  value[0].a: The secure handle of this buffer, It's value[3].a of
+	 *                   MTK_TZCMD_SECMEM_ZALLOC.
+	 * [out] value[1].a: return value, 0 means successful, otherwise fail.
+	 */
+	MTK_TZCMD_SECMEM_FREE	= 0x10001,
+};
+
 struct mtk_restricted_heap_data {
 	struct tee_context	*tee_ctx;
 	u32			tee_session;
@@ -74,6 +95,74 @@ static int mtk_tee_session_init(struct mtk_restricted_heap_data *data)
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int mtk_tee_service_call(struct tee_context *tee_ctx, u32 session,
+				unsigned int command, struct tee_param *params)
+{
+	struct tee_ioctl_invoke_arg arg = {0};
+	int ret;
+
+	arg.num_params = TEE_PARAM_NUM;
+	arg.session = session;
+	arg.func = command;
+
+	ret = tee_client_invoke_func(tee_ctx, &arg, params);
+	if (ret < 0 || arg.ret) {
+		pr_err("%s: cmd %d ret %d:%x.\n", __func__, command, ret, arg.ret);
+		ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
+	}
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static int mtk_tee_restrict_memory(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf)
+{
+	struct mtk_restricted_heap_data *data = heap->priv_data;
+	struct tee_param params[TEE_PARAM_NUM] = {0};
+	int ret;
+
+	params[0].attr = TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_VALUE_INPUT;
+	params[0].u.value.a = buf->size;
+	params[0].u.value.b = PAGE_SIZE;
+	params[1].attr = TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_VALUE_INPUT;
+	params[1].u.value.a = data->mem_type;
+	params[2].attr = TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_VALUE_INPUT;
+	params[3].attr = TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_VALUE_OUTPUT;
+	ret = mtk_tee_service_call(data->tee_ctx, data->tee_session,
+				   MTK_TZCMD_SECMEM_ZALLOC, params);
+	if (ret)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	buf->restricted_addr = params[3].u.value.a;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static void mtk_tee_unrestrict_memory(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf)
+{
+	struct mtk_restricted_heap_data *data = heap->priv_data;
+	struct tee_param params[TEE_PARAM_NUM] = {0};
+
+	params[0].attr = TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_VALUE_INPUT;
+	params[0].u.value.a = buf->restricted_addr;
+	params[1].attr = TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_VALUE_OUTPUT;
+
+	mtk_tee_service_call(data->tee_ctx, data->tee_session,
+			     MTK_TZCMD_SECMEM_FREE, params);
+	if (params[1].u.value.a)
+		pr_err("%s, Unrestrict buffer(0x%llx) fail(%lld) from TEE.\n",
+		       heap->name, buf->restricted_addr, params[1].u.value.a);
+}
+
+static int
+mtk_restricted_memory_allocate(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf)
+{
+	/* The memory allocating is within the TEE. */
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static void
+mtk_restricted_memory_free(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffer *buf)
+{
+}
+
 static int mtk_restricted_heap_init(struct restricted_heap *heap)
 {
 	struct mtk_restricted_heap_data *data = heap->priv_data;
@@ -85,6 +174,10 @@ static int mtk_restricted_heap_init(struct restricted_heap *heap)
 
 static const struct restricted_heap_ops mtk_restricted_heap_ops = {
 	.heap_init		= mtk_restricted_heap_init,
+	.memory_alloc		= mtk_restricted_memory_allocate,
+	.memory_free		= mtk_restricted_memory_free,
+	.memory_restrict	= mtk_tee_restrict_memory,
+	.memory_unrestrict	= mtk_tee_unrestrict_memory,
 };
 
 static struct mtk_restricted_heap_data mtk_restricted_heap_data = {
-- 
2.25.1

[PATCH v4 7/7] dma_buf: heaps: restricted_heap_mtk: Add a new CMA heap

[Yong Wu]

Create a new MediaTek CMA heap from the CMA reserved buffer.

In this heap, When the first allocating buffer, use cma_alloc to prepare
whole the CMA range, then send its range to TEE to protect and manage.
For the later allocating, we just adds the cma_used_size.

When SVP done, cma_release will release the buffer, then kernel may
reuse it.

For the "CMA" restricted heap, "struct cma *cma" is a common property,
not just for MediaTek, so put it into "struct restricted_heap" instead of
our private data.

Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
---
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig               |   2 +-
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h     |   4 +
 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig
index 84f748fb2856..58903bc62ac8 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ config DMABUF_HEAPS_RESTRICTED
 
 config DMABUF_HEAPS_RESTRICTED_MTK
 	bool "MediaTek DMA-BUF Restricted Heap"
-	depends on DMABUF_HEAPS_RESTRICTED && TEE=y
+	depends on DMABUF_HEAPS_RESTRICTED && DMA_CMA && TEE=y
 	help
 	  Enable restricted dma-buf heaps for MediaTek platform. This heap is backed by
 	  TEE client interfaces. If in doubt, say N.
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
index 6c93f6d257dc..8d17c39b65de 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
@@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ struct restricted_heap {
 
 	const struct restricted_heap_ops *ops;
 
+	struct cma		*cma;
+	unsigned long		cma_paddr;
+	unsigned long		cma_size;
+
 	void			*priv_data;
 };
 
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c
index 902add95bb7e..0180d04076e2 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c
@@ -4,9 +4,11 @@
  *
  * Copyright (C) 2024 MediaTek Inc.
  */
+#include <linux/cma.h>
 #include <linux/dma-buf.h>
 #include <linux/err.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/of_reserved_mem.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>
 #include <linux/tee_drv.h>
 #include <linux/uuid.h>
@@ -23,6 +25,13 @@ enum mtk_secure_mem_type {
 	 * management is inside the TEE.
 	 */
 	MTK_SECURE_MEMORY_TYPE_CM_TZ	= 1,
+	/*
+	 * MediaTek dynamic chunk memory carved out from CMA.
+	 * In normal case, the CMA could be used in kernel; When SVP start, we will
+	 * allocate whole this CMA and pass whole the CMA PA and size into TEE to
+	 * protect it, then the detail memory management also is inside the TEE.
+	 */
+	MTK_SECURE_MEMORY_TYPE_CM_CMA	= 2,
 };
 
 enum mtk_secure_buffer_tee_cmd {
@@ -32,6 +41,8 @@ enum mtk_secure_buffer_tee_cmd {
 	 * [in]  value[0].a: The buffer size.
 	 *       value[0].b: alignment.
 	 * [in]  value[1].a: enum mtk_secure_mem_type.
+	 * [in]  value[2].a: pa base in cma case.
+	 *       value[2].b: The buffer size in cma case.
 	 * [out] value[3].a: The secure handle.
 	 */
 	MTK_TZCMD_SECMEM_ZALLOC	= 0x10000, /* MTK TEE Command ID Base */
@@ -52,6 +63,9 @@ struct mtk_restricted_heap_data {
 
 	const enum mtk_secure_mem_type mem_type;
 
+	struct page		*cma_page;
+	unsigned long		cma_used_size;
+	struct mutex		lock; /* lock for cma_used_size */
 };
 
 static int mtk_tee_ctx_match(struct tee_ioctl_version_data *ver, const void *data)
@@ -125,6 +139,10 @@ static int mtk_tee_restrict_memory(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restrict
 	params[1].attr = TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_VALUE_INPUT;
 	params[1].u.value.a = data->mem_type;
 	params[2].attr = TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_VALUE_INPUT;
+	if (heap->cma && data->mem_type == MTK_SECURE_MEMORY_TYPE_CM_CMA) {
+		params[2].u.value.a = heap->cma_paddr;
+		params[2].u.value.b = heap->cma_size;
+	}
 	params[3].attr = TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_VALUE_OUTPUT;
 	ret = mtk_tee_service_call(data->tee_ctx, data->tee_session,
 				   MTK_TZCMD_SECMEM_ZALLOC, params);
@@ -163,6 +181,48 @@ mtk_restricted_memory_free(struct restricted_heap *heap, struct restricted_buffe
 {
 }
 
+static int mtk_restricted_memory_cma_allocate(struct restricted_heap *heap,
+					      struct restricted_buffer *buf)
+{
+	struct mtk_restricted_heap_data *data = heap->priv_data;
+	int ret = 0;
+	/*
+	 * Allocate CMA only when allocating buffer for the first time, and just
+	 * increase cma_used_size at the other time, Actually the memory
+	 * allocating is within the TEE.
+	 */
+	mutex_lock(&data->lock);
+	if (!data->cma_used_size) {
+		data->cma_page = cma_alloc(heap->cma, heap->cma_size >> PAGE_SHIFT,
+					   get_order(PAGE_SIZE), false);
+		if (!data->cma_page) {
+			ret = -ENOMEM;
+			goto out_unlock;
+		}
+	} else if (data->cma_used_size + buf->size > heap->cma_size) {
+		ret = -EINVAL;
+		goto out_unlock;
+	}
+	data->cma_used_size += buf->size;
+
+out_unlock:
+	mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static void mtk_restricted_memory_cma_free(struct restricted_heap *heap,
+					   struct restricted_buffer *buf)
+{
+	struct mtk_restricted_heap_data *data = heap->priv_data;
+
+	mutex_lock(&data->lock);
+	data->cma_used_size -= buf->size;
+	if (!data->cma_used_size)
+		cma_release(heap->cma, data->cma_page,
+			    heap->cma_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
+	mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
+}
+
 static int mtk_restricted_heap_init(struct restricted_heap *heap)
 {
 	struct mtk_restricted_heap_data *data = heap->priv_data;
@@ -184,21 +244,77 @@ static struct mtk_restricted_heap_data mtk_restricted_heap_data = {
 	.mem_type		= MTK_SECURE_MEMORY_TYPE_CM_TZ,
 };
 
+static const struct restricted_heap_ops mtk_restricted_heap_ops_cma = {
+	.heap_init		= mtk_restricted_heap_init,
+	.memory_alloc		= mtk_restricted_memory_cma_allocate,
+	.memory_free		= mtk_restricted_memory_cma_free,
+	.memory_restrict	= mtk_tee_restrict_memory,
+	.memory_unrestrict	= mtk_tee_unrestrict_memory,
+};
+
+static struct mtk_restricted_heap_data mtk_restricted_heap_data_cma = {
+	.mem_type		= MTK_SECURE_MEMORY_TYPE_CM_CMA,
+};
+
 static struct restricted_heap mtk_restricted_heaps[] = {
 	{
 		.name		= "restricted_mtk_cm",
 		.ops		= &mtk_restricted_heap_ops,
 		.priv_data	= &mtk_restricted_heap_data,
 	},
+	{
+		.name		= "restricted_mtk_cma",
+		.ops		= &mtk_restricted_heap_ops_cma,
+		.priv_data	= &mtk_restricted_heap_data_cma,
+	},
 };
 
+static int __init mtk_restricted_cma_init(struct reserved_mem *rmem)
+{
+	struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap = mtk_restricted_heaps, *rstrd_heap_cma = NULL;
+	struct mtk_restricted_heap_data *data;
+	struct cma *cma;
+	int ret, i;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mtk_restricted_heaps); i++, rstrd_heap++) {
+		data = rstrd_heap->priv_data;
+		if (data->mem_type == MTK_SECURE_MEMORY_TYPE_CM_CMA) {
+			rstrd_heap_cma = rstrd_heap;
+			break;
+		}
+	}
+	if (!rstrd_heap_cma)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	ret = cma_init_reserved_mem(rmem->base, rmem->size, 0, rmem->name,
+				    &cma);
+	if (ret) {
+		pr_err("%s: %s set up CMA fail\n", __func__, rmem->name);
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	rstrd_heap_cma->cma = cma;
+	rstrd_heap_cma->cma_paddr = rmem->base;
+	rstrd_heap_cma->cma_size = rmem->size;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+RESERVEDMEM_OF_DECLARE(restricted_cma, "mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region",
+		       mtk_restricted_cma_init);
+
 static int mtk_restricted_heap_initialize(void)
 {
 	struct restricted_heap *rstrd_heap = mtk_restricted_heaps;
+	struct mtk_restricted_heap_data *data;
 	unsigned int i;
 
-	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mtk_restricted_heaps); i++, rstrd_heap++)
-		restricted_heap_add(rstrd_heap);
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mtk_restricted_heaps); i++, rstrd_heap++) {
+		data = rstrd_heap->priv_data;
+		if (data->mem_type == MTK_SECURE_MEMORY_TYPE_CM_CMA && !rstrd_heap->cma)
+			continue;
+		if (!restricted_heap_add(rstrd_heap))
+			mutex_init(&data->lock);
+	}
 	return 0;
 }
 module_init(mtk_restricted_heap_initialize);
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] dma-buf: heaps: Add restricted heap

[Pekka Paalanen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5096 bytes --]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:20:07 +0800
Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com> wrote:

> The purpose of this patchset is for MediaTek secure video playback, and
> also to enable other potential uses of this in the future. The 'restricted
> dma-heap' will be used to allocate dma_buf objects that reference memory
> in the secure world that is inaccessible/unmappable by the non-secure
> (i.e. kernel/userspace) world.  That memory will be used by the secure/
> trusted world to store secure information (i.e. decrypted media content).
> The dma_bufs allocated from the kernel will be passed to V4L2 for video
> decoding (as input and output). They will also be used by the drm
> system for rendering of the content.
> 
> This patchset adds two MediaTek restricted heaps and they will be used in
> v4l2[1] and drm[2].
> 1) restricted_mtk_cm: secure chunk memory for MediaTek SVP (Secure Video
>    Path). The buffer is reserved for the secure world after bootup and it
>    is used for vcodec's ES/working buffer;
> 2) restricted_mtk_cma: secure CMA memory for MediaTek SVP. This buffer is
>    dynamically reserved for the secure world and will be got when we start
>    playing secure videos. Once the security video playing is complete, the
>    CMA will be released. This heap is used for the vcodec's frame buffer. 
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mediatek/20231206081538.17056-1-yunfei.dong@mediatek.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231223182932.27683-1-jason-jh.lin@mediatek.com/
> 
> Change note:
> v4: 1) Rename the heap name from "secure" to "restricted". suggested from
>      Simon/Pekka. There are still several "secure" string in MTK file
>      since we use ARM platform in which we call this "secure world"/
>      "secure command".

Hi,

I am really happy about this name change, thank you.

It is unfortunate that ARM specifications use the word "secure", but so
be it. When referring to specs, it's good to use the spec wording.

In everything that is not a direct reference to some spec though it
would be nice to use the "restricted" terminology if possible. I
presume there are other vendors who use words other than what ARM uses
for similar concepts. A common vocabulary would be nice.


Thanks,
pq

> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mediatek/20231212024607.3681-1-yong.wu@mediatek.com/
>     1) Separate the secure heap to a common file(secure_heap.c) and mtk
>      special file (secure_heap_mtk.c),  and put all the tee related code
>      into our special file.
>     2) About dt-binding, Add "mediatek," prefix since this is Mediatek TEE
>      firmware definition.
>     3) Remove the normal CMA heap which is a draft for qcom.
>     Rebase on v6.7-rc1.
> 
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mediatek/20231111111559.8218-1-yong.wu@mediatek.com/
>     1) Move John's patches into the vcodec patchset since they use the new
>        dma heap interface directly.
>        https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mediatek/20231106120423.23364-1-yunfei.dong@mediatek.com/
>     2) Reword the dt-binding description.
>     3) Rename the heap name from mtk_svp to secure_mtk_cm.
>        This means the current vcodec/DRM upstream code doesn't match this.
>     4) Add a normal CMA heap. currently it should be a draft version.
>     5) Regarding the UUID, I still use hard code, but put it in a private
>     data which allow the others could set their own UUID. What's more, UUID
>     is necessary for the session with TEE. If we don't have it, we can't
>     communicate with the TEE, including the get_uuid interface, which tries
>     to make uuid more generic, not working. If there is other way to make
>     UUID more general, please free to tell me.
>     
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mediatek/20230911023038.30649-1-yong.wu@mediatek.com/
>     Base on v6.6-rc1.
> 
> Yong Wu (7):
>   dt-bindings: reserved-memory: Add mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region
>   dma-buf: heaps: Initialize a restricted heap
>   dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add private heap ops
>   dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add dma_ops
>   dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap: Add MediaTek restricted heap and
>     heap_init
>   dma-buf: heaps: restricted_heap_mtk: Add TEE memory service call
>   dma_buf: heaps: restricted_heap_mtk: Add a new CMA heap
> 
>  .../mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region.yaml   |  43 +++
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig                 |  16 +
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile                |   4 +-
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c       | 237 +++++++++++++
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h       |  43 +++
>  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c   | 322 ++++++++++++++++++
>  6 files changed, 664 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/mediatek,dynamic-restricted-region.yaml
>  create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.c
>  create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap.h
>  create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/heaps/restricted_heap_mtk.c
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]