Re: [EXT] [PATCH v9 3/7] crypto: caam - determine whether CAAM supports blob encap/decap

["Horia Geantă" <horia.geanta@nxp.com>]

On 5/11/2022 12:21 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am 2022-05-11 11:16, schrieb Pankaj Gupta:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
>>> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:34 PM
>>> To: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>; Horia Geanta
>>> <horia.geanta@nxp.com>; Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>; 
>>> David S.
>>> Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
>>> Cc: kernel@pengutronix.de; Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>; James
>>> Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>; Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>; 
>>> Mimi
>>> Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>; David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>; 
>>> James
>>> Morris <jmorris@namei.org>; Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>; Serge 
>>> E.
>>> Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>; Jan Luebbe <j.luebbe@pengutronix.de>; David 
>>> Gstir
>>> <david@sigma-star.at>; Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>; Franck
>>> Lenormand <franck.lenormand@nxp.com>; Matthias Schiffer
>>> <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>; Sumit Garg 
>>> <sumit.garg@linaro.org>;
>>> linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org; keyrings@vger.kernel.org; linux-
>>> crypto@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-security-
>>> module@vger.kernel.org
>>> Subject: Re: [EXT] [PATCH v9 3/7] crypto: caam - determine whether 
>>> CAAM
>>> supports blob encap/decap
>>>
>>> Caution: EXT Email
>>>
>>> Hello Pankaj,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2022-05-09 at 12:39 +0000, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
>>>>> -       if (ctrlpriv->era < 10)
>>>>> +       comp_params = rd_reg32(&ctrl->perfmon.comp_parms_ls);
>>>>> +       ctrlpriv->blob_present = !!(comp_params & CTPR_LS_BLOB);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       if (ctrlpriv->era < 10) {
>>>>>                 rng_vid = (rd_reg32(&ctrl->perfmon.cha_id_ls) &
>>>>>                            CHA_ID_LS_RNG_MASK) >>
>>>>> CHA_ID_LS_RNG_SHIFT;
>>>>
>>>> Check for AES CHAs for Era < 10, should be added.
>>>
>>> Do I need this? I only do this check for Era >= 10, because apparently 
>>> there are
>>> Layerscape non-E processors that indicate BLOB support via 
>>> CTPR_LS_BLOB, but
>>> fail at runtime. Are there any Era < 10 SoCs that are similarly 
>>> broken?
>>>
>>
>> For non-E variants, it might happen that Blob protocol is enabled, but
>> number of AES CHA are zero.
>> If the output of below expression is > 0, then only blob_present
>> should be marked present or true.
>> For era > 10, you handled. But for era < 10, please add the below code.
> 
> Are there any CAAMs which can be just enabled partially for era < 10?
> I didn't found anything. To me it looks like the non-export controlled
> CAAM is only available for era >= 10. For era < 10, the CAAM is either
> fully featured there or it is not available at all and thus the node
> is removed in the bootloader (at least that is the case for layerscape).
> 
Qouting from our previous discussion in U-boot:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20200602150904.1997-1-michael@walle.cc/#2457448

"
Based on previous (NXP-internal) discussions, non-E crypto module is:
-fully disabled on: LS1021A (ARMv7), LS1043A, LS1088A, LS2088A
(and their personalities)
-partially [*] disabled on: LS1012A, LS1028A, LS1046A, LX2160A
(and their personalities)
"

From the partially disabled list, LS1028A and LX2160A have CAAM Era 10,
while LS1012A and LS1046A integrate CAAM Era 8.

Horia