Hi, On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 7:38 PM Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Le mardi 04 mars 2025 à 13:15 +0530, Sumit Garg a écrit : > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 08:17:23AM +0100, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 3:12 PM Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Sumit, > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 at 11:24, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 21:52, Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > dma-heaps was created to solve the problem of having too many > > > > > > 'allocate $n bytes from $specialplace' uAPIs. The proliferation was > > > > > > painful and making it difficult for userspace to do what it needed to > > > > > > do. Userspace doesn't _yet_ make full use of it, but the solution is > > > > > > to make userspace make full use of it, not to go create entirely > > > > > > separate allocation paths for unclear reasons. > > > > > > > > > > > > Besides, I'm writing this from a platform that implements SVP not via > > > > > > TEE. I've worked on platforms which implement SVP without any TEE, > > > > > > where the TEE implementation would be at best a no-op stub, and at > > > > > > worst flat-out impossible. > > > > > > > > > > Can you elaborate the non-TEE use-case for Secure Video Path (SVP) a > > > > > bit more? As to how the protected/encrypted media content pipeline > > > > > works? Which architecture support does your use-case require? Is there > > > > > any higher privileged level firmware interaction required to perform > > > > > media content decryption into restricted memory? Do you plan to > > > > > upstream corresponding support in near future? > > > > > > > > You can see the MTK SVP patches on list which use the MTK SMC to mediate it. > > > > > > > > There are TI Jacinto platforms which implement a 'secure' area > > > > configured statically by (IIRC) BL2, with static permissions defined > > > > for each AXI endpoint, e.g. CPU write + codec RW + dispc read. I've > > > > heard of another SoC vendor doing the same, but I don't think I can > > > > share those details. There is no TEE interaction. > > > > > > > > I'm writing this message from an AMD laptop which implements > > > > restricted content paths outside of TEE. I don't have the full picture > > > > of how SVP is implemented on AMD systems, but I do know that I don't > > > > have any TEE devices exposed. > > > > > > > > > Let me try to elaborate on the Secure Video Path (SVP) flow requiring > > > > > a TEE implementation (in general terms a higher privileged firmware > > > > > managing the pipeline as the kernel/user-space has no access > > > > > permissions to the plain text media content): > > > > > > > > > > - [...] > > > > > > > > Yeah, I totally understand the TEE usecase. I think that TEE is a good > > > > design to implement this. I think that TEE should be used for SVP > > > > where it makes sense. > > > > > > > > Please understand that I am _not_ arguing that no-one should use TEE for SVP! > > > > > > > > > > So, again, let's > > > > > > please turn this around: _why_ TEE? Who benefits from exposing this as > > > > > > completely separate to the more generic uAPI that we specifically > > > > > > designed to handle things like this? > > > > > > > > > > The bridging between DMA heaps and TEE would still require user-space > > > > > to perform an IOCTL into TEE to register the DMA-bufs as you can see > > > > > here [1]. Then it will rather be two handles for user-space to manage. > > > > > > > > Yes, the decoder would need to do this. That's common though: if you > > > > want to share a buffer between V4L2 and DRM, you have three handles: > > > > the V4L2 buffer handle, the DRM GEM handle, and the dmabuf you use to > > > > bridge the two. > > > > > > > > > Similarly during restricted memory allocation/free we need another > > > > > glue layer under DMA heaps to TEE subsystem. > > > > > > > > Yep. > > > > > > > > > The reason is simply which has been iterated over many times in the > > > > > past threads that: > > > > > > > > > > "If user-space has to interact with a TEE device for SVP use-case > > > > > then why it's not better to ask TEE to allocate restricted DMA-bufs > > > > > too" > > > > > > > > The first word in your proposition is load-bearing. > > > > > > > > Build out the usecase a little more here. You have a DRMed video > > > > stream coming in, which you need to decode (involving TEE for this > > > > usecase). You get a dmabuf handle to the decoded frame. You need to > > > > pass the dmabuf across to the Wayland compositor. The compositor needs > > > > to pass it to EGL/Vulkan to import and do composition, which in turn > > > > passes it to the GPU DRM driver. The output of the composition is in > > > > turn shared between the GPU DRM driver and the separate KMS DRM > > > > driver, with the involvement of GBM. > > > > > > > > For the platforms I'm interested in, the GPU DRM driver needs to > > > > switch into protected mode, which has no involvement at all with TEE - > > > > it's architecturally impossible to have TEE involved without moving > > > > most of the GPU driver into TEE and destroying performance. The > > > > display hardware also needs to engage protected mode, which again has > > > > no involvement with TEE and again would need to have half the driver > > > > moved into TEE for no benefit in order to do so. The Wayland > > > > compositor also has no interest in TEE: it tells the GPU DRM driver > > > > about the protected status of its buffers, and that's it. > > > > > > > > What these components _are_ opinionated about, is the way buffers are > > > > allocated and managed. We built out dmabuf modifiers for this usecase, > > > > and we have a good negotiation protocol around that. We also really > > > > care about buffer placement in some usecases - e.g. some display/codec > > > > hardware requires buffers to be sourced from contiguous memory, other > > > > hardware needs to know that when it shares buffers with another > > > > device, it needs to place the buffers outside of inaccessible/slow > > > > local RAM. So we built out dma-heaps, so every part of the component > > > > in the stack can communicate their buffer-placement needs in the same > > > > way as we do modifiers, and negotiate an acceptable allocation. > > > > > > > > That's my starting point for this discussion. We have a mechanism to > > > > deal with the fact that buffers need to be shared between different IP > > > > blocks which have their own constraints on buffer placement, avoiding > > > > the current problem of having every subsystem reinvent their own > > > > allocation uAPI which was burying us in impedance mismatch and > > > > confusion. That mechanism is dma-heaps. It seems like your starting > > > > point from this discussion is that you've implemented a TEE-centric > > > > design for SVP, and so all of userspace should bypass our existing > > > > cross-subsystem special-purpose allocation mechanism, and write > > > > specifically to one implementation. I believe that is a massive step > > > > backwards and an immediate introduction of technical debt. > > > > > > > > Again, having an implementation of SVP via TEE makes a huge amount of > > > > sense. Having _most_ SVP implementations via TEE still makes a lot of > > > > sense. Having _all_ SVP implementations eventually be via TEE would > > > > still make sense. But even if we were at that point - which we aren't > > > > - it still doesn't justify telling userspace 'use the generic dma-heap > > > > uAPI for every device-specific allocation constraint, apart from SVP > > > > which has a completely different way to allocate some bytes'. > > > > > > I must admit that I don't see how this makes a significant difference, > > > but then I haven't hacked much in the stacks you're talking about, so > > > I'm going to take your word for it. > > > > > > I've experimented with providing a dma-heap replacing the TEE API. The > > > implementation is more complex than I first anticipated, adding about > > > 400 lines to the patch set. > > > > I did anticipated this but let's give it a try and see if DMA heaps > > really adds any value from user-space point of view. If it does then it > > will be worth the maintenence overhead. > > > > > From user space, it looks like another > > > dma-heap. I'm using the names you gave earlier, > > > protected,secure-video, protected,trusted-ui, and > > > protected,secure-video-record. However, I wonder if we shouldn't use > > > "restricted" instead of "protected" since we had agreed to call it > > > restricted memory earlier. > > > > Let's stick with "restricted" memory buffer references only. > > Until now, we didn't have a standard to balance our naming choice, we > simply wanted to move away from "secure" which didn't mean much, and > restricted met our needs. I think the discussion is worth having again, > now that there is a standard that decided toward "protected". Matchcing > the Khronos standard means reducing a lot of confusion. > > https://docs.vulkan.org/guide/latest/protected.html Yeah, that's fine with me. I don't mind changing the name again as long as we progress. The latest version of the patchset is here [1]. I've published a demo and changed the patchset to provide a heap interface instead of a special interface in the TEE subsystem for memory allocations as requested. I'm interested in feedback on the patches in general, but in particular, on how the heap interface is provided. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250305130634.1850178-1-jens.wiklander@xxxxxxxxxx/ Cheers, Jens
