Re: [PATCH v1 02/12] fpga: create intel max10 bmc security engine

Russ Weight
2020-09-14T21:40:16Z

On 9/14/20 1:48 PM, Tom Rix wrote:
> On 9/14/20 12:07 PM, Russ Weight wrote:
>> On 9/5/20 1:22 PM, Tom Rix wrote:
>>> On 9/4/20 4:52 PM, Russ Weight wrote:
>>>> Create a platform driver that can be invoked as a sub
>>>> driver for the Intel MAX10 BMC in order to support
>>>> secure updates. This sub-driver will invoke an
>>>> instance of the Intel FPGA Security Manager class driver
>>>> in order to expose sysfs interfaces for managing and
>>>> monitoring secure updates to FPGA and BMC images.
>>>>
>>>> This patch creates the MAX10 BMC Security Engine driver and
>>>> provides support for displaying the current root entry hashes
>>>> for the FPGA static region, the FPGA PR region, and the MAX10
>>>> BMC.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/fpga/Kconfig | 11 ++
>>>> drivers/fpga/Makefile | 3 +
>>>> drivers/fpga/intel-m10-bmc-secure.c | 170 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h | 15 +++
>>>> 4 files changed, 199 insertions(+)
>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/fpga/intel-m10-bmc-secure.c
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/Kconfig b/drivers/fpga/Kconfig
>>>> index 97c0a6cc2ba7..0f0bed68e618 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/fpga/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -244,4 +244,15 @@ config IFPGA_SEC_MGR
>>>> region and for the BMC. Select this option to enable
>>>> updates for secure FPGA devices.
>>>>
>>>> +config IFPGA_M10_BMC_SECURE
>>>> + tristate "Intel MAX10 BMC security engine"
>>>> + depends on MFD_INTEL_M10_BMC && IFPGA_SEC_MGR
>>>> + help
>>>> + Secure update support for the Intel MAX10 board management
>>>> + controller.
>>>> +
>>>> + This is a subdriver of the Intel MAX10 board management controller
>>>> + (BMC) and provides support for secure updates for the BMC image,
>>>> + the FPGA image, the Root Entry Hashes, etc.
>>>> +
>>>> endif # FPGA
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/Makefile b/drivers/fpga/Makefile
>>>> index ec9fbacdedd8..451a23ec3168 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/fpga/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/Makefile
>>>> @@ -24,6 +24,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ALTERA_PR_IP_CORE_PLAT) += altera-pr-ip-core-plat.o
>>>> # Intel FPGA Security Manager Framework
>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_IFPGA_SEC_MGR) += ifpga-sec-mgr.o
>>>>
>>>> +# Intel Security Manager Drivers
>>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_IFPGA_M10_BMC_SECURE) += intel-m10-bmc-secure.o
>>>> +
>>>> # FPGA Bridge Drivers
>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_FPGA_BRIDGE) += fpga-bridge.o
>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_SOCFPGA_FPGA_BRIDGE) += altera-hps2fpga.o altera-fpga2sdram.o
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/intel-m10-bmc-secure.c b/drivers/fpga/intel-m10-bmc-secure.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 000000000000..1f86bfb694b4
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/intel-m10-bmc-secure.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Intel Max10 Board Management Controller Security Engine Driver
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2019-2020 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
>>>> + *
>>>> + */
>>>> +#include <linux/device.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/fpga/ifpga-sec-mgr.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
>>>> +
>>>> +struct m10bmc_sec {
>>>> + struct device *dev;
>>>> + struct intel_m10bmc *m10bmc;
>>>> + struct ifpga_sec_mgr *imgr;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +#define SHA256_REH_SIZE 32
>>>> +#define SHA384_REH_SIZE 48
>>>> +
>>>> +static int get_reh_size(struct ifpga_sec_mgr *imgr,
>>>> + u32 exp_magic, u32 prog_addr)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct m10bmc_sec *sec = imgr->priv;
>>>> + int sha_num_bytes, ret;
>>>> + u32 magic;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = m10bmc_raw_read(sec->m10bmc, prog_addr, &magic);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + dev_dbg(sec->dev, "%s magic 0x%08x\n", __func__, magic);
>>>> +
>>>> + if ((magic & 0xffff) != exp_magic)
>>> return -EINVAL ?
>> The absence of the magic number indicates that a Root Entry Hash has
>> not been programmed. So a null string (string size of zero) is appropriate
>> here.
>>
>> I'll add a comment.
>>
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + sha_num_bytes = ((magic >> 16) & 0xffff) / 8;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (sha_num_bytes != SHA256_REH_SIZE &&
>>>> + sha_num_bytes != SHA384_REH_SIZE) {
>>>> + dev_err(sec->dev, "%s bad sha num bytes %d\n", __func__,
>>>> + sha_num_bytes);
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + return sha_num_bytes;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +#define BMC_REH_ADDR 0x17ffc004
>>>> +#define BMC_PROG_ADDR 0x17ffc000
>>>> +#define BMC_PROG_MAGIC 0x5746
>>>> +
>>>> +#define SR_REH_ADDR 0x17ffd004
>>>> +#define SR_PROG_ADDR 0x17ffd000
>>>> +#define SR_PROG_MAGIC 0x5253
>>>> +
>>>> +#define PR_REH_ADDR 0x17ffe004
>>>> +#define PR_PROG_ADDR 0x17ffe000
>>>> +#define PR_PROG_MAGIC 0x5250
>>> Why shouldn't these #defines be collected in the intel-m10-bmc.h ?
>> Placing them in intel-m10-bmc-h would give them a broader scope and make them
>> available to all m10-bmc sub-drivers. I placed them here to limit the scope to
>> the only file that should care about these definitions.
>>
>> Is this OK - or should they be moved to the header file?
> My thinking keeping all the register defines in one place is
>
> better than spreading it all out.  This would help with possible
>
> future changes that effected the entire register set.

OK - I'll try to consolidate register definitions in the intel-m10-bmc-h header file.

>
>>>> +
>>>> +#define SYSFS_GET_REH_SIZE(_name, _exp_magic, _prog_addr) \
>>>> +static int get_##_name##_reh_size(struct ifpga_sec_mgr *imgr) \
>>>> +{ \
>>>> + return get_reh_size(imgr, _exp_magic, _prog_addr); \
>>>> +}
>>> Is this macro overkill for a 1 liner ?
>> It gives a slight reduction in code. I could go either way. What do you think? Should I take out the macros? Or leave it as is?
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +SYSFS_GET_REH_SIZE(bmc, BMC_PROG_MAGIC, BMC_PROG_ADDR)
>>>> +SYSFS_GET_REH_SIZE(sr, SR_PROG_MAGIC, SR_PROG_ADDR)
>>>> +SYSFS_GET_REH_SIZE(pr, PR_PROG_MAGIC, PR_PROG_ADDR)
>>> These and similar below do not directly interact
>>>
>>> with the sysfs so the sysfs_ prefix should not be needed.
>> OK - I'll remove the SYSFS_ prefix.
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +static int get_root_entry_hash(struct ifpga_sec_mgr *imgr,
>>>> + u32 hash_addr, u8 *hash,
>>>> + unsigned int size)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct m10bmc_sec *sec = imgr->priv;
>>>> + unsigned int stride = regmap_get_reg_stride(sec->m10bmc->regmap);
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = m10bmc_raw_bulk_read(sec->m10bmc, hash_addr,
>>>> + hash, size / stride);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + dev_err(sec->dev, "bulk_read of 0x%x failed %d",
>>>> + hash_addr, ret);
>>>> +
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +#define SYSFS_GET_REH(_name, _hash_addr) \
>>>> +static int get_##_name##_root_entry_hash(struct ifpga_sec_mgr *imgr, \
>>>> + u8 *hash, unsigned int size) \
>>>> +{ \
>>>> + return get_root_entry_hash(imgr, _hash_addr, hash, size); \
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +SYSFS_GET_REH(bmc, BMC_REH_ADDR)
>>>> +SYSFS_GET_REH(sr, SR_REH_ADDR)
>>>> +SYSFS_GET_REH(pr, PR_REH_ADDR)
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct ifpga_sec_mgr_ops m10bmc_iops = {
>>>> + .bmc_root_entry_hash = get_bmc_root_entry_hash,
>>>> + .sr_root_entry_hash = get_sr_root_entry_hash,
>>>> + .pr_root_entry_hash = get_pr_root_entry_hash,
>>>> + .bmc_reh_size = get_bmc_reh_size,
>>>> + .sr_reh_size = get_sr_reh_size,
>>>> + .pr_reh_size = get_pr_reh_size,
>>> The prefix of the ops should be similar to the file name.
>>>
>>> so consider changing get_pr_reh_size to max10_pr_reh_size
>> I'll switch to a prefix of m10bmc_ to be consistent with the probe and
>> remove functions.
>>
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static void ifpga_sec_mgr_uinit(struct m10bmc_sec *sec)
>>>> +{
>>>> + ifpga_sec_mgr_unregister(sec->imgr);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int ifpga_sec_mgr_init(struct m10bmc_sec *sec)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct ifpga_sec_mgr *imgr;
>>>> +
>>>> + imgr = ifpga_sec_mgr_register(sec->dev, "Max10 BMC Security Manager",
>>>> + &m10bmc_iops, sec);
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(imgr))
>>>> + return PTR_ERR(imgr);
>>>> +
>>>> + sec->imgr = imgr;
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int m10bmc_secure_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct m10bmc_sec *sec;
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + sec = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*sec), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> + if (!sec)
>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> + sec->dev = &pdev->dev;
>>>> + sec->m10bmc = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
>>>> + dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev, sec);
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = ifpga_sec_mgr_init(sec);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
>>>> + "Security manager failed to start: %d\n", ret);
>>>> +
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int m10bmc_secure_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct m10bmc_sec *sec = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
>>>> +
>>>> + ifpga_sec_mgr_uinit(sec);
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct platform_driver intel_m10bmc_secure_driver = {
>>>> + .probe = m10bmc_secure_probe,
>>>> + .remove = m10bmc_secure_remove,
>>>> + .driver = {
>>>> + .name = "n3000bmc-secure",
>>> From the filename, should this be "max10bmc-secure" ?
>> This driver file will also service other devices. A future patch will add support
>> for the d5005 card and the same driver code will be used, with some conditional
>> logic, to support the d5005 card under the name "d5005bmc-secure". See the following
>> link for a preview of these changes.
>>
>> https://github.com/OPAE/linux-dfl/blob/8e94e1f41c1571a322aac0c8d6ab8ee282e45016/drivers/mfd/intel-m10-bmc-secure.c#L803
>>
>> I chose to put n3000 in the name now so that the driver name (visible to user
>> space applications) will not have to change names the d5005 functionality is added.
>>
>> The source filename is intel-m10-bmc-secure.c. Would it be better to call this driver
>> n3000-m10bmc-secure?
>>
>> Should I introduce the struct platform_device_id array (see the above link) now with
>> a single entry for the n3000? So that the initial version of this file will contain
>> the main driver name (intel-m10bmc-secure) as well as the n3000bmc-secure name?
> Thanks for you explanation that this will also be used by d5005.
>
> I think you have fine as-is.
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
>
>>>> + },
>>>> +};
>>>> +module_platform_driver(intel_m10bmc_secure_driver);
>>>> +
>>>> +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:n3000bmc-secure");
>>>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Intel Corporation");
>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Intel MAX10 BMC secure engine");
>>>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h b/include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h
>>>> index d4cb01b73357..7fe465c320c2 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h
>>>> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ struct intel_m10bmc {
>>>> * register access helper functions.
>>>> *
>>>> * m10bmc_raw_read - read m10bmc register per addr
>>>> + * m10bmc_raw_bulk_read - bulk_read max10 registers per addr
>>> second '_' should be removed so it reads like
>>>
>>> bulk read max10 registers..
>> Thanks for the comments! I'll fix this.
>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>> * m10bmc_sys_read - read m10bmc system register per offset
>>>> */
>>>> static inline int
>>>> @@ -79,6 +80,20 @@ m10bmc_raw_read(struct intel_m10bmc *m10bmc, unsigned int addr,
>>>> return ret;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static inline int
>>>> +m10bmc_raw_bulk_read(struct intel_m10bmc *m10bmc, unsigned int addr,
>>>> + void *val, size_t cnt)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = regmap_bulk_read(m10bmc->regmap, addr, val, cnt);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + dev_err(m10bmc->dev, "fail to read raw reg %x cnt %zx: %d\n",
>>>> + addr, cnt, ret);
>>>> +
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> #define m10bmc_sys_read(m10bmc, offset, val) \
>>>> m10bmc_raw_read(m10bmc, M10BMC_SYS_BASE + (offset), val)
>>>>