From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f171.google.com (mail-pl1-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E69612E1D4 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:14:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711559666; cv=none; b=usDhGZds1/w7lR4qhgTE1VY0QSQCTAcrXFfl0dopfTL0uIoxV61VQERz9OzeQQTnY+e8mcUNcxORasM4u3lSC83uQgWRP0QCdBM24F8T2TwriceCeGOM3NrP+n1PyWs5HsduCsML+NU3MtvNtmYUZCWBCn944ds9rbZbjK+5z4A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711559666; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fK2jVsEBn9iJbm7nNKUjCIWztfRu3IeS99BhFcCgVvg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=f/1EYI2cbqxVTT2Ff3+jUrQlG+TPDkCXk3qce3e3Tc0Muy8waqcOl7cSY5RMOcmfdmoF8NOEclnsXjMNznWhXWyXkcHB2r1dxTw78O4MxlX5qte5eO3k0er1OCnIgsBrwhWozEMfax+dkb67lYlxrrjjLcVSWpEBnZ9v/o6kJMU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b=wawc70My; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="wawc70My" Received: by mail-pl1-f171.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1e00d1e13a2so607735ad.0 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:14:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1711559664; x=1712164464; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RVDGUtmUaQVtA8J9OsClqc9G7HFCdTwY1X2qQsnwTG0=; b=wawc70MyV27ELsBA2KccZI1wgyVf0dIjWiFNW6TVhKn6hbj0VW9HgxVCbRFoJSeWrf M1aFis5trDNS6R5WNLtpF260JgzzI1lX4NWBDwK6/XIxCyyLt0I1O/fBcjqbAIlQ0KaA 3pomMZla3Q277UV8NWNmWm/0kZl0XTZt5XRC6nxVo/rOr4q9PpvFTGVM+bP4i7ZS7T3z FomtWzfBhKC+wocmA5r0froLQqMnSlFvZvatrzz+AS7vHe4Q9XvoXIlthNKfTdthc9MD +P1ld2nF4PiTjtmdP/MNBrzb+lBthwivGmW+knEtDh7mxlLqRyR7oQlhducDNAVRGzoI msVg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711559664; x=1712164464; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=RVDGUtmUaQVtA8J9OsClqc9G7HFCdTwY1X2qQsnwTG0=; b=lM3SoMQpNt0ZncWhV1N4a+5Dz9/0q4Py0u3AK/RBj5MEEzUOHtJsDSodkSViFd9VZC DHfSJPvEXZzm5PdLhy0+i+gDHH4hNreHOhgaYNbR3OG7Uxk+Fx8ts/XsD5n7tcfrvhZ+ CHI7fXaIkhupA64NuvtGU2rpZgusERiQldHICNIEsq08P57FKAle5gdyMDxYXaYk84wn tI3YdiicYtEIUTNqb6UOaJbE/XgT3NRc4dMSRyKGmIVuL7U+RVnat6+sw9WyOIiH4Bqr v+BbFwGAUoDqb19ng/eFrOTdVq3mpxJVMLrgIWQWpCo5NU1ESHpG8InXCuTFarxPUmQ/ B4mw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWa1TGC9DB7bl5pl/3KI8U87YgGFfJbHK4tYZVj+DZicL9AVuln3tzr/kK5Bu2lKkd9ouXHWwIyMtEFLZYFTTIjvlmtQw+ThUnTpA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxZCTYZyWv+4gvSSCtSaiOf6SYOyb1CuAqh9Kp92YCPOQrTqsgY lT6JWlhWqI24Lcqoboluw4EubXDEJP36BTZgkwOXAG5Mi0AkRQ0mgVgmGtaxn0Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEmplxPc3Vi44xU69R4gGYRPZ7qZCQlWmYMhZQFifk5gXQ/J5dkbrXhoE9QrXfziLLS0+T4ig== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:8c5:b0:1de:e84b:74e1 with SMTP id lk5-20020a17090308c500b001dee84b74e1mr368085plb.29.1711559664452; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p14s ([2604:3d09:148c:c800:dd82:60ad:849e:4ab5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id jy8-20020a17090342c800b001e0e999cd8bsm4223492plb.137.2024.03.27.10.14.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 11:14:20 -0600 From: Mathieu Poirier To: Arnaud POULIQUEN Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Jens Wiklander , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] remoteproc: stm32: Add support of an OP-TEE TA to load the firmware Message-ID: References: <20240308144708.62362-1-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> <20240308144708.62362-5-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 08:31:33PM +0100, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: > > > On 3/25/24 17:51, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 03:47:08PM +0100, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote: > >> The new TEE remoteproc device is used to manage remote firmware in a > >> secure, trusted context. The 'st,stm32mp1-m4-tee' compatibility is > >> introduced to delegate the loading of the firmware to the trusted > >> execution context. In such cases, the firmware should be signed and > >> adhere to the image format defined by the TEE. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen > >> --- > >> Updates from V3: > >> - remove support of the attach use case. Will be addressed in a separate > >> thread, > >> - add st_rproc_tee_ops::parse_fw ops, > >> - inverse call of devm_rproc_alloc()and tee_rproc_register() to manage cross > >> reference between the rproc struct and the tee_rproc struct in tee_rproc.c. > >> --- > >> drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > >> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c > >> index 8cd838df4e92..13df33c78aa2 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c > >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c > >> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ > >> #include > >> #include > >> #include > >> +#include > >> #include > >> > >> #include "remoteproc_internal.h" > >> @@ -49,6 +50,9 @@ > >> #define M4_STATE_STANDBY 4 > >> #define M4_STATE_CRASH 5 > >> > >> +/* Remote processor unique identifier aligned with the Trusted Execution Environment definitions */ > > > > Why is this the case? At least from the kernel side it is possible to call > > tee_rproc_register() with any kind of value, why is there a need to be any > > kind of alignment with the TEE? > > > The use of the proc_id is to identify a processor in case of multi co-processors. > That is well understood. > For instance we can have a system with A DSP and a modem. We would use the same > TEE service, but That too. > the TEE driver will probably be different, same for the signature key. What TEE driver are we talking about here? > In such case the proc ID allows to identify the the processor you want to address. > That too is well understood, but there is no alignment needed with the TEE, i.e the TEE application is not expecting a value of '0'. We could set STM32_MP1_M4_PROC_ID to 0xDEADBEEF and things would work. This driver won't go anywhere for as long as it is not the case. > > > > >> +#define STM32_MP1_M4_PROC_ID 0 > >> + > >> struct stm32_syscon { > >> struct regmap *map; > >> u32 reg; > >> @@ -257,6 +261,19 @@ static int stm32_rproc_release(struct rproc *rproc) > >> return 0; > >> } > >> > >> +static int stm32_rproc_tee_stop(struct rproc *rproc) > >> +{ > >> + int err; > >> + > >> + stm32_rproc_request_shutdown(rproc); > >> + > >> + err = tee_rproc_stop(rproc); > >> + if (err) > >> + return err; > >> + > >> + return stm32_rproc_release(rproc); > >> +} > >> + > >> static int stm32_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc) > >> { > >> struct device *dev = rproc->dev.parent; > >> @@ -693,8 +710,19 @@ static const struct rproc_ops st_rproc_ops = { > >> .get_boot_addr = rproc_elf_get_boot_addr, > >> }; > >> > >> +static const struct rproc_ops st_rproc_tee_ops = { > >> + .prepare = stm32_rproc_prepare, > >> + .start = tee_rproc_start, > >> + .stop = stm32_rproc_tee_stop, > >> + .kick = stm32_rproc_kick, > >> + .load = tee_rproc_load_fw, > >> + .parse_fw = tee_rproc_parse_fw, > >> + .find_loaded_rsc_table = tee_rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table, > >> +}; > >> + > >> static const struct of_device_id stm32_rproc_match[] = { > >> - { .compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4" }, > >> + {.compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4",}, > >> + {.compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4-tee",}, > >> {}, > >> }; > >> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, stm32_rproc_match); > >> @@ -853,6 +881,7 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > >> struct stm32_rproc *ddata; > >> struct device_node *np = dev->of_node; > >> + struct tee_rproc *trproc = NULL; > >> struct rproc *rproc; > >> unsigned int state; > >> int ret; > >> @@ -861,9 +890,26 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> if (ret) > >> return ret; > >> > >> - rproc = devm_rproc_alloc(dev, np->name, &st_rproc_ops, NULL, sizeof(*ddata)); > >> - if (!rproc) > >> - return -ENOMEM; > >> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "st,stm32mp1-m4-tee")) { > >> + /* > >> + * Delegate the firmware management to the secure context. > >> + * The firmware loaded has to be signed. > >> + */ > >> + rproc = devm_rproc_alloc(dev, np->name, &st_rproc_tee_ops, NULL, sizeof(*ddata)); > >> + if (!rproc) > >> + return -ENOMEM; > >> + > >> + trproc = tee_rproc_register(dev, rproc, STM32_MP1_M4_PROC_ID); > >> + if (IS_ERR(trproc)) { > >> + dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(trproc), > >> + "signed firmware not supported by TEE\n"); > >> + return PTR_ERR(trproc); > >> + } > >> + } else { > >> + rproc = devm_rproc_alloc(dev, np->name, &st_rproc_ops, NULL, sizeof(*ddata)); > >> + if (!rproc) > >> + return -ENOMEM; > >> + } > >> > >> ddata = rproc->priv; > >> > >> @@ -915,6 +961,9 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(dev); > >> device_init_wakeup(dev, false); > >> } > >> + if (trproc) > > > > if (rproc->tee_interface) > > > > > > I am done reviewing this set. > > Thank for your review! > Arnaud > > > > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > >> + tee_rproc_unregister(trproc); > >> + > >> return ret; > >> } > >> > >> @@ -935,6 +984,9 @@ static void stm32_rproc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(dev); > >> device_init_wakeup(dev, false); > >> } > >> + if (rproc->tee_interface) > >> + tee_rproc_unregister(rproc->tee_interface); > >> + > >> } > >> > >> static int stm32_rproc_suspend(struct device *dev) > >> -- > >> 2.25.1 > >>