Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] tee: Support shm registration without dma-buf backing

[Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1708 bytes --]

On 2021-06-10 09:34:24, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 08:51:04AM -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > I've just posted "[PATCH 0/7] tee: shared memory updates",
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210609102324.2222332-1-jens.wiklander(a)linaro.org/
> > > > 
> > > > Where tee_shm_alloc() is replaced by among other functions
> > > > tee_shm_alloc_kernel_buf(). tee_shm_alloc_kernel_buf() takes care of the
> > > > problem with TEE_SHM_DMA_BUF.
> > > 
> > > Thanks! At first glance, that series would take care of the last three
> > > patches in my kexec/kdump series.
> > 
> > Correction: Your series would not completely take care of the last three
> > patches in my kexec/kdump series because your series doesn't implement
> > the .shutdown() hook for tee_bnxt_fw.
> > 
> > Does it make sense to take my series first and then rebase your series
> > on top of it? That would allow my fixes to flow back to stable, then
> > your changes would greatly clean up the implementation in future
> > releases.
> 
> Yes, we could try that. I'd like to see tee_shm_alloc_kernel_buf() being
> used instead of tee_shm_alloc() in ftpm_tee_probe() and
> tee_bnxt_fw_probe(). So it would be great if you could include "tee: add
> tee_shm_alloc_kernel_buf()" in your patch set.

That would be no problem at all. I like that idea and I've prepared a v4
with that change. I'll send it out shortly once I've finished testing.

> My patch set would then shrink a bit. By the way, thanks for reviewing
> it.

No problem! I feel like I'm starting to understand the TEE subsystem and
OP-TEE driver a bit so I'm happy to help out.

Tyler

> 
> Cheers,
> Jens
>