Hi Cyrille, On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 1:41 PM Cyrille Fleury <cyrille.fleury@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jerome Forissier <jerome.forissier@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 1:32 PM > >> To: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@xxxxxxxxxx>; Olivier Masse > >> <olivier.masse@xxxxxxx> > >> Cc: sumit.garg@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > >> fredgc@xxxxxxxxxx; linaro-mm-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; afd@xxxxxx; > >> op-tee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jens.wiklander@xxxxxxxxxx; > >> joakim.bech@xxxxxxxxxx; sumit.semwal@xxxxxxxxxx; Cyrille Fleury > >> <cyrille.fleury@xxxxxxx>; Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>; > >> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Clément > >> Faure <clement.faure@xxxxxxx>; christian.koenig@xxxxxxx > >> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] tee: new ioctl to a register > >> tee_shm from a dmabuf file descriptor > >> > >> On 2/3/23 15:12, Cyrille Fleury wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> >On 2/3/23 12:37, Etienne Carriere wrote: > >> >> Hell all, > >> >> > >> >> +jerome f. > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 12:01, Olivier Masse <olivier.masse@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> On jeu., 2023-02-02 at 10:58 +0100, Etienne Carriere wrote: > >> >>>> Caution: EXT Email > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 09:35, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>>> Hi Cyrille, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Please don't top post as it makes it harder to follow-up. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 13:26, Cyrille Fleury > >> >>>>> <cyrille.fleury@xxxxxxx > >> >>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>> Hi Sumit, all > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Upstream OP-TEE should support registering a dmabuf since a > >> >>>>>> while, given how widely dmabuf is used in Linux for passing > >> >>>>>> buffers around between devices. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Purpose of the new register_tee_shm ioctl is to allow OPTEE to > >> >>>>>> use memory allocated from the exiting linux dma buffer. We > >> >>>>>> don't need to have secure dma-heap up streamed. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> You mentioned secure dma-buffer, but secure dma-buffer is a > >> >>>>>> dma- buffer, so the work to be done for secure or "regular" dma > >> >>>>>> buffers by the register_tee_shm ioctl is 100% the same. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> The scope of this ioctl is limited to what existing upstream > >> >>>>>> dma- buffers are: > >> >>>>>> -> sharing buffers for hardware (DMA) access across > >> >>>>>> multiple device drivers and subsystems, and for synchronizing > >> >>>>>> asynchronous hardware access. > >> >>>>>> -> It means continuous memory only. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> So if we reduce the scope of register tee_shm to exiting dma- > >> >>>>>> buffer area, the current patch does the job. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Do you have a corresponding real world use-case supported by > >> >>>>> upstream OP-TEE? AFAIK, the Secure Data Path (SDP) use-case is > >> >>>>> the one supported in OP-TEE upstream but without secure dmabuf > >> >>>>> heap [1] available, the new ioctl can't be exercised. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [1] > >> >>>>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > >> >>>>> 2Fg%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ccyrille.fleury%40nxp.com%7C057d956d144a41e > >> >>>>> dd81808db0db1c7f9%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6 > >> >>>>> 38118829451030288%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC > >> >>>>> JQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sda > >> >>>>> ta=tBh3qNiinzTn%2BgqE8IvGw%2BYvRvo8ztDt4W4O0noEkk8%3D&reserved=0 > >> >>>>> ithub.com%2FOP-TEE%2Foptee_test%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fhost%2Fxtest%2 > >> >>>>> Fsd > >> >>>>> p_basic.h%23L15&data=05%7C01%7Ccyrille.fleury%40nxp.com%7C9ff962 > >> >>>>> fb5 > >> >>>>> 8f6401c597808db05e2a64b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7 > >> >>>>> C0% > >> >>>>> 7C638110243232457377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDA > >> >>>>> iLC > >> >>>>> JQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sda > >> >>>>> ta= > >> >>>>> UNB88rvmhQ5qRoIGN%2FpS4cQTES5joM8AjoyAAYzPKl0%3D&reserved=0 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> OP-TEE has some SDP test taht can exercice SDP: 'xtest > >> >>>> regression_1014'. > >> >>>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > >> >>>> Fgi%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ccyrille.fleury%40nxp.com%7C057d956d144a41ed > >> >>>> d81808db0db1c7f9%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C638 > >> >>>> 118829451030288%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI > >> >>>> joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=% > >> >>>> 2FDGLzwTOc5%2F30%2BLy4bBVckK0fRJRsvuGcUvp6bfW9Tg%3D&reserved=0 > >> >>>> thub.com%2FOP-TEE%2Foptee_test%2Fblob%2F3.20.0%2Fhost%2Fxtest%2Fr > >> >>>> egr > >> >>>> ession_1000.c%23L1256&data=05%7C01%7Ccyrille.fleury%40nxp.com%7C9 > >> >>>> ff9 > >> >>>> 62fb58f6401c597808db05e2a64b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7 > >> >>>> C0% > >> >>>> 7C0%7C638110243232457377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw > >> >>>> MDA > >> >>>> iLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&s > >> >>>> dat > >> >>>> a=e%2B40rwWvtvVFG8aWZNeu%2FgjMXXvZ3pRhJfHLkdurovs%3D&reserved=0 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The test relies on old staged ION + local secure dmabuf heaps no > >> >>>> more maintained, so this test is currently not functional. > >> >>>> If we upgrade the test to mainline dmabuf alloc means, and apply > >> >>>> the change discussed here, we should be able to regularly test > >> >>>> SDP in OP-TEE project CI. > >> >>>> The part to update is the userland allocation of the dmabuf: > >> >>>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > >> >>>> Fgi%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ccyrille.fleury%40nxp.com%7C057d956d144a41ed > >> >>>> d81808db0db1c7f9%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C638 > >> >>>> 118829451030288%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI > >> >>>> joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=% > >> >>>> 2FDGLzwTOc5%2F30%2BLy4bBVckK0fRJRsvuGcUvp6bfW9Tg%3D&reserved=0 > >> >>>> thub.com%2FOP-TEE%2Foptee_test%2Fblob%2F3.20.0%2Fhost%2Fxtest%2Fs > >> >>>> dp_ > >> >>>> basic.c%23L91&data=05%7C01%7Ccyrille.fleury%40nxp.com%7C9ff962fb5 > >> >>>> 8f6 > >> >>>> 401c597808db05e2a64b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7 > >> >>>> C63 > >> >>>> 8110243232457377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ > >> >>>> Ijo > >> >>>> iV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5rP > >> >>>> V1j > >> >>>> qzqjVh2N5pdUW41YwF6EkgIDwfhyfYkgmtdZI%3D&reserved=0 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> the test was already updated to support secure dma heap with > >> >>> Kernel version 5.11 and higher. the userland allocation could be find here: > >> >>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > >> >>> git%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ccyrille.fleury%40nxp.com%7C057d956d144a41edd > >> >>> 81808db0db1c7f9%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C63811 > >> >>> 8829451030288%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoi > >> >>> V2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dUNus > >> >>> R9w0TlzTRiqUUhU8yo%2BUF7QPhsx5t8GQuAA1SU%3D&reserved=0 > >> >>> hub.com%2FOP-TEE%2Foptee_test%2Fblob%2F3.20.0%2Fhost%2Fxtest%2Fsdp > >> >>> _ba > >> >>> sic.c%23L153&data=05%7C01%7Ccyrille.fleury%40nxp.com%7C9ff962fb58f > >> >>> 640 > >> >>> 1c597808db05e2a64b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C63 > >> >>> 811 > >> >>> 0243232457377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoi > >> >>> V2l > >> >>> uMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=01H96n47 > >> >>> K6R > >> >>> mBKZQhRdcqX3nE5VBHOXNfGuMmmkVSvc%3D&reserved=0 > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> Oh, right. So fine, optee_test is ready for the new flavor of > >> >> secure buffer fd's. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> This upgrade need a Linux dma-buf patch: > >> >>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > >> >>> lor%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ccyrille.fleury%40nxp.com%7C057d956d144a41edd > >> >>> 81808db0db1c7f9%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C63811 > >> >>> 8829451030288%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoi > >> >>> V2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4iomH > >> >>> K4kPt6A4OmyioiIFD360bGh39o0d2%2BJGyI3WYM%3D&reserved=0 > >> >>> e.kernel.org%2Fall%2F20220805154139.2qkqxwklufjpsfdx%4000037740335 > >> >>> 3%2 > >> >>> FT%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ccyrille.fleury%40nxp.com%7C9ff962fb58f6401c59 > >> >>> 780 > >> >>> 8db05e2a64b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C638110243 > >> >>> 232 > >> >>> 457377%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzI > >> >>> iLC > >> >>> JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yCS%2BDcuGp%2Ba > >> >>> fAL > >> >>> tpw74O1bI0K%2Fwnt%2FOw5ob1ngfDA0E%3D&reserved=0 > >> >> > >> >> @Jens, @Jerome, do we want to pick the 2 necessary Linux patches in > >> >> our Linux kernel fork (github.com/linaro-swg/linux.git) to exercise > >> >> SDP in our CI and be ready if dma-buf secure heaps (ref right > >> >> above) is accepted and merged in mainline kernel?. > >> > > >> >How would that help? I mean, when the kernel patches are merged and > >> >if things break we can make the necessary adjustments in the > >> >optee_test app or whatever, but in the meantime I don't see much > >> >point. I suppose the people who are actively developing the patches > >> >do make sure it works with OP-TEE ;-) > >> > > >> >Regards, > >> >-- > >> >Jerome > >> > >> As mentioned in the cover letter, this IOCTL got tested by Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@xxxxxxxxxx>, using Linaro reference board from Hikey 6620: > >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist > >> s.trustedfirmware.org%2Farchives%2Flist%2Fop-tee%40lists.trustedfirmwa > >> re.org%2Fthread%2FI3TZN4TBDOUVE567VMMN2TAXGWZNY7S3%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cc > >> yrille.fleury%40nxp.com%7C057d956d144a41edd81808db0db1c7f9%7C686ea1d3b > >> c2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C638118829451030288%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb > >> GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0 > >> %3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EHEVIdfHacDVq%2BCdSYg0Tkm1ekQLEI6Vra4elN0%2F > >> %2F6I%3D&reserved=0 > >> It also works on i.MX8M EVK boards. > >> > >> My understanding today is we are good to upstream this patch, knowing: > >> - Upstream OPTEE driver should support registering a dmabuf since a while, given how widely dmabuf is used in Linux for passing buffers around between devices. > >> - review is OK > >> - test environment is already available in optee-test > >> - it has been tested on 2 different platforms > >> - the scope of the new ioctl is limited to existing feature in > >> dma-buffer > >> > >> What is missing from this list preventing to upstream ? > > > >Please address the comments from Etienne and post a new version of the patch based on the latest kernel. Please try to improve the language in the commit message. > > > >Is it possible to update the tests so this can be tested on QEMU in our CI loop? That should help to get the review restarted. > > > >Thanks, > >Jens > > > > Hi Jens > Could you point the Etienne comment(s) not addressed by the pull request to add register tee_shm ioctl to linux optee-driver? > Last comments from Etienne: > -> Oh, right. So fine, optee_test is ready for the new flavor of secure buffer fd's. > -> @Jens, @Jerome, do we want to pick the 2 necessary Linux patches in our Linux kernel fork (github.com/linaro-swg/linux.git) to exercise SDP in our CI and be ready if dma-buf secure heaps (ref right above) is accepted and merged in mainline kernel?. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAN5uoS-nT1Bi0dhf74Hpv9LS6XPeTCdZ7sujAKNjacZ+PNh4xA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ There are four comments quite a bit down into the patch. Cheers, Jens
