On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 01:43:46PM +0000, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 6:54 PM
> > To: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Conor Dooley
> > <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>; Pengutronix
> > Kernel Team <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fabio Estevam
> > <festevam@xxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] firmware: imx: add driver for NXP EdgeLock
> > Enclave
> >
> > Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or
> > opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report
> > this email' button
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 04:19:35PM +0530, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> > > NXP hardware IP(s) for secure-enclaves like Edgelock Enclave(ELE), are
> > > embedded in the SoC to support the features like HSM, SHE & V2X, using
> > > message based communication interface.
> > >
> > > The secure enclave FW communicates on a dedicated messaging unit(MU)
> > > based interface(s) with application core, where kernel is running.
> > > It exists on specific i.MX processors. e.g. i.MX8ULP, i.MX93.
> > >
> > > This patch adds the driver for communication interface to
> > > secure-enclave, for exchanging messages with NXP secure enclave HW
> > > IP(s) like EdgeLock Enclave (ELE) from Kernel-space, used by kernel
> > > management layers like
> > > - DM-Crypt.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/firmware/imx/Kconfig | 12 +
> > > drivers/firmware/imx/Makefile | 2 +
> > > drivers/firmware/imx/ele_base_msg.c | 286 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > drivers/firmware/imx/ele_base_msg.h | 92 +++++++
> > > drivers/firmware/imx/ele_common.c | 239 ++++++++++++++++
> > > drivers/firmware/imx/ele_common.h | 43 +++
> > > drivers/firmware/imx/se_ctrl.c | 531
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > drivers/firmware/imx/se_ctrl.h | 99 +++++++
> > > include/linux/firmware/imx/se_api.h | 14 +
> > > 9 files changed, 1318 insertions(+)
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > +int imx_ele_msg_send(struct se_if_priv *priv, void *tx_msg) {
> > > + struct se_msg_hdr *header;
> > > + int err;
> > > +
> > > + header = (struct se_msg_hdr *) tx_msg;
> > > +
> > > + if (header->tag == priv->cmd_tag)
> > > + lockdep_assert_held(&priv->se_if_cmd_lock);
> > > +
> > > + scoped_guard(mutex, &priv->se_if_lock);
> >
> > scoped_guard() with an empty block doesn't make much sense. Either use
> > scope_guard() { /* do something locked */ }; or guard().
> >
> Need to allow send more than one message at a time. Hence, done it after taking the lock.
> Once message sent, scope of lock is over.
You take the lock and release it immediately afterwards. There's nothing
locked with this. Please have a look how scoped_guard() works.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
