On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 10:57:35PM GMT, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote: > Qualcomm TEE hosts Trusted Applications (TAs) and services that run in > the secure world. Access to these resources is provided using MinkIPC. > MinkIPC is a capability-based synchronous message passing facility. It > allows code executing in one domain to invoke objects running in other > domains. When a process holds a reference to an object that lives in > another domain, that object reference is a capability. Capabilities > allow us to separate implementation of policies from implementation of > the transport. > > As part of the upstreaming of the object invoke driver (called SMC-Invoke > driver), we need to provide a reasonable kernel API and UAPI. The clear > option is to use TEE subsystem and write a back-end driver, however the > TEE subsystem doesn't fit with the design of Qualcomm TEE. > > Does TEE subsystem fit requirements of a capability based system? > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > In TEE subsystem, to invoke a function: > - client should open a device file "/dev/teeX", > - create a session with a TA, and > - invoke the functions in that session. > > 1. The privilege to invoke a function is determined by a session. If a > client has a session, it cannot share it with other clients. Even if > it does, it is not fine-grained enough, i.e. either all accessible > functions/resources in a session or none. Assume a scenario when a client > wants to grant a permission to invoke just a function that it has the rights, > to another client. > > The "all or nothing" for sharing sessions is not in line with our > capability system: "if you own a capability, you should be able to grant > or share it". Can you please be more specific here? What kind of sharing is expected on the user side of it? > 2. In TEE subsystem, resources are managed in a context. Every time a > client opens "/dev/teeX", a new context is created to keep track of > the allocated resources, including opened sessions and remote objects. Any > effort for sharing resources between two independent clients requires > involvement of context manager, i.e. the back-end driver. This requires > implementing some form of policy in the back-end driver. What kind of resource sharing? > 3. The TEE subsystem supports two type of memory sharing: > - per-device memory pools, and > - user defined memory references. > User defined memory references are private to the application and cannot > be shared. Memory allocated from per-device "shared" pools are accessible > using a file descriptor. It can be mapped by any process if it has > access to it. This means, we cannot provide the resource isolation > between two clients. Assume a scenario when a client wants to allocate a > memory (which is shared with TEE) from an "isolated" pool and share it > with another client, without the right to access the contents of memory. This doesn't explain, why would it want to share such memory with another client. > 4. The kernel API provided by TEE subsystem does not support a kernel > supplicant. Adding support requires an execution context (e.g. a > kernel thread) due to the TEE subsystem design. tee_driver_ops supports > only "send" and "receive" callbacks and to deliver a request, someone > should wait on "receive". There is nothing wrong here, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something. > We need a callback to "dispatch" or "handle" a request in the context of > the client thread. It should redirect a request to a kernel service or > a user supplicant. In TEE subsystem such requirement should be implemented > in TEE back-end driver, independent from the TEE subsystem. > > 5. The UAPI provided by TEE subsystem is similar to the GPTEE Client > interface. This interface is not suitable for a capability system. > For instance, there is no session in a capability system which means > either its should not be used, or we should overload its definition. General comment: maybe adding more detailed explanation of how the capabilities are aquired and how they can be used might make sense. BTW. It might be my imperfect English, but each time I see the word 'capability' I'm thinking that some is capable of doing something. I find it hard to use 'capability' for the reference to another object. > > Can we use TEE subsystem? > ------------------------- > There are workarounds for some of the issues above. The question is if we > should define our own UAPI or try to use a hack-y way of fitting into > the TEE subsystem. I am using word hack-y, as most of the workaround > involves: > > - "diverging from the definition". For instance, ignoring the session > open and close ioctl calls or use file descriptors for all remote > resources (as, fd is the closet to capability) which undermines the > isolation provided by the contexts, > > - "overloading the variables". For instance, passing object ID as file > descriptors in a place of session ID, or > > - "bypass TEE subsystem". For instance, extensively rely on meta > parameters or push everything (e.g. kernel services) to the back-end > driver, which means leaving almost all TEE subsystem unused. > > We cannot take the full benefits of TEE subsystem and may need to > implement most of the requirements in the back-end driver. Also, as > discussed above, the UAPI is not suitable for capability-based use cases. > We proposed a new set of ioctl calls for SMC-Invoke driver. > > In this series we posted three patches. We implemented a transport > driver that provides qcom_tee_object. Any object on secure side is > represented with an instance of qcom_tee_object and any struct exposed > to TEE should embed an instance of qcom_tee_object. Any, support for new > services, e.g. memory object, RPMB, userspace clients or supplicants are > implemented independently from the driver. > > We have a simple memory object and a user driver that uses > qcom_tee_object. Could you please point out any user for the uAPI? I'd like to understand how does it from from the userspace point of view. > > Signed-off-by: Amirreza Zarrabi <quic_azarrabi@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Amirreza Zarrabi (3): > firmware: qcom: implement object invoke support > firmware: qcom: implement memory object support for TEE > firmware: qcom: implement ioctl for TEE object invocation > > drivers/firmware/qcom/Kconfig | 36 + > drivers/firmware/qcom/Makefile | 2 + > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_object_invoke/Makefile | 12 + > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_object_invoke/async.c | 142 +++ > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_object_invoke/core.c | 1139 ++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_object_invoke/core.h | 186 +++ > .../qcom/qcom_object_invoke/qcom_scm_invoke.c | 22 + > .../firmware/qcom/qcom_object_invoke/release_wq.c | 90 ++ > .../qcom/qcom_object_invoke/xts/mem_object.c | 406 +++++++ > .../qcom_object_invoke/xts/object_invoke_uapi.c | 1231 ++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/firmware/qcom/qcom_object_invoke.h | 233 ++++ > include/uapi/misc/qcom_tee.h | 117 ++ > 12 files changed, 3616 insertions(+) > --- > base-commit: 74564adfd3521d9e322cfc345fdc132df80f3c79 > change-id: 20240702-qcom-tee-object-and-ioctls-6f52fde03485 > > Best regards, > -- > Amirreza Zarrabi <quic_azarrabi@xxxxxxxxxxx> > -- With best wishes Dmitry
