From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069F5C4CEC9 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA28721897 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:44:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728260AbfIRJoD (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 05:44:03 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:38316 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726591AbfIRJoC (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 05:44:02 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF02337; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 02:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from donnerap.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 621BB3F59C; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 02:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:43:47 +0100 From: Andre Przywara To: Jassi Brar Cc: Peng Fan , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "sudeep.holla@arm.com" , "f.fainelli@gmail.com" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , dl-linux-imx Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc for the ARM SMC/HVC mailbox Message-ID: <20190918104347.285bd7ad@donnerap.cambridge.arm.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1568626884-5189-1-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com> <1568626884-5189-2-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com> <20190917183115.3e40180f@donnerap.cambridge.arm.com> Organization: ARM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:27:00 -0500 Jassi Brar wrote: Hi, > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:31 PM Andre Przywara wrote: > > > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:44:37 +0000 > > Peng Fan wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > From: Peng Fan > > > > > > The ARM SMC/HVC mailbox binding describes a firmware interface to trigger > > > actions in software layers running in the EL2 or EL3 exception levels. > > > The term "ARM" here relates to the SMC instruction as part of the ARM > > > instruction set, not as a standard endorsed by ARM Ltd. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-smc.yaml | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-smc.yaml > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-smc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-smc.yaml > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..bf01bec035fc > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-smc.yaml > > > @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > +--- > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mailbox/arm-smc.yaml# > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > + > > > +title: ARM SMC Mailbox Interface > > > + > > > +maintainers: > > > + - Peng Fan > > > + > > > +description: | > > > + This mailbox uses the ARM smc (secure monitor call) and hvc (hypervisor > > > > I think "or" instead of "and" is less confusing. > > > > > + call) instruction to trigger a mailbox-connected activity in firmware, > > > + executing on the very same core as the caller. The value of r0/w0/x0 > > > + the firmware returns after the smc call is delivered as a received > > > + message to the mailbox framework, so synchronous communication can be > > > + established. The exact meaning of the action the mailbox triggers as > > > + well as the return value is defined by their users and is not subject > > > + to this binding. > > > + > > > + One use case of this mailbox is the SCMI interface, which uses shared > > > > One example use case of this mailbox ... > > (to make it more obvious that it's not restricted to this) > > > > > + memory to transfer commands and parameters, and a mailbox to trigger a > > > + function call. This allows SoCs without a separate management processor > > > + (or when such a processor is not available or used) to use this > > > + standardized interface anyway. > > > + > > > + This binding describes no hardware, but establishes a firmware interface. > > > + Upon receiving an SMC using one of the described SMC function identifiers, > > > > ... the described SMC function identifier, > > > > > + the firmware is expected to trigger some mailbox connected functionality. > > > + The communication follows the ARM SMC calling convention. > > > + Firmware expects an SMC function identifier in r0 or w0. The supported > > > + identifiers are passed from consumers, > > > > identifier > > > > "passed from consumers": How? Where? > > But I want to repeat: We should not allow this. > > This is a binding for a mailbox controller driver, not a generic firmware backdoor. > > > Exactly. The mailbox controller here is the SMC/HVC instruction, No, the mailbox controller is an *SMCCC compliant* smc/hvc call, targeting a very specific function ID. SMC calls are used for PSCI already, for instance, and you don't want to mess with that. Also some platforms define a vendor specific smc interface, again using a well constructed function ID complying to SMCCC. So we definitely need to stay within SMCCC for this kind of generic interface, *and* to let firmware specify the function ID via the DT, to not clash with any other function ID. > which needs 9 arguments to work. The fact that the fist argument is > always going to be same on a platform is just the way we use this > instruction. > > > We should be as strict as possible to avoid any security issues. > > > Any example of such a security issue? Someone finds a way to trick some mailbox client to send a crafted message to the mailbox. Do you have any example of a use case where the mailbox client needs to provide the function ID? > > The firmware certainly knows the function ID it implements. The firmware controls the DT. So it is straight-forward to put the ID into the DT. The firmware could even do this at boot time, dynamically, before passing on the DT to the non-secure world (bootloader or kernel). > > > > What would be the use case of this functionality? > > > At least for flexibility and consistency. I appreciate the flexibility idea, but when creating an interface, especially a generic one to any kind of firmware, you should be as strict as possible, to avoid clashes in the future. > > > or listed in the the arm,func-ids > > > > arm,func-id > > > > > + properties as described below. The firmware can return one value in > > > > property > > > > > + the first SMC result register, it is expected to be an error value, > > > + which shall be propagated to the mailbox client. > > > + > > > + Any core which supports the SMC or HVC instruction can be used, as long > > > + as a firmware component running in EL3 or EL2 is handling these calls. > > > + > > > +properties: > > > + compatible: > > > + oneOf: > > > + - description: > > > + For implementations using ARM SMC instruction. > > > + const: arm,smc-mbox > > > + > > > + - description: > > > + For implementations using ARM HVC instruction. > > > + const: arm,hvc-mbox > > > > I am not particularly happy with this, but well ... > > > > > + > > > + "#mbox-cells": > > > + const: 1 > > > > Why is this "1"? What is this number used for? It used to be the channel ID, but since you are describing a single channel controller only, this should be 0 now. > > > Yes. I overlooked it and actually queued the patch for pull request. > But I think the bindings should not carry a 'fix' patch later. Also I > realise this revision of binding hasn't been reviewed by Rob. Maybe I > should drop the patch for now. Yes, please do. I would like to make sure that the binding is correct, as it serves as a specification for people implementing both firmware services and other drivers (like *BSD). > > > + > > > + arm,func-id: > > > + description: | > > > + An 32-bit value specifying the function ID used by the mailbox. > > > > A single 32-bit value ... > > > > > + The function ID follow the ARM SMC calling convention standard [1]. > > > > follows > > > > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > > > + > > > +required: > > > + - compatible > > > + - "#mbox-cells" > > > + > > > +examples: > > > + - | > > > + sram@93f000 { > > > + compatible = "mmio-sram"; > > > + reg = <0x0 0x93f000 0x0 0x1000>; > > > + #address-cells = <1>; > > > + #size-cells = <1>; > > > + ranges = <0x0 0x93f000 0x1000>; > > > + > > > + cpu_scp_lpri: scp-shmem@0 { > > > + compatible = "arm,scmi-shmem"; > > > + reg = <0x0 0x200>; > > > + }; > > > + }; > > > + > > > + smc_tx_mbox: tx_mbox { > > > + #mbox-cells = <1>; > > > > As mentioned above, should be 0. > > > > > + compatible = "arm,smc-mbox"; > > > + /* optional */ > > > > First: having "optional" in a specific example is not helpful, just confusing. > > Second: It is actually *not* optional in this case, as there is no other way of propagating the function ID. The SCMI driver as the mailbox client has certainly no clue about this. > > I think I said this previously: Relying on the mailbox client to pass the function ID sounds broken, as this is a property of the mailbox controller driver. The mailbox client does not care about this mailbox communication detail, it just wants to trigger the mailbox. > > > Again, the mailbox controller here is the SMC/HVC _instruction_, which > doesn't care what value the first argument carry. That is not true. Just check Peng's example implementation he mentioned in the cover letter: #define FSL_SIP_SCMI_1 0xc20000fe #define FSL_SIP_SCMI_2 0xc20000ff .... case FSL_SIP_SCMI_1: case FSL_SIP_SCMI_2: SMC_RET1(handle, scmi_handler(smc_fid, x1, x2, x3)); Definitely the function ID is crucial here. Cheers, Andre.