On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 08:32, Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 02:52:31PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > Hi Manuel, > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 11:10 AM Manuel Traut <manut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 14:13 Mon 27 May , Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > > --- a/drivers/tee/optee/ffa_abi.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/tee/optee/ffa_abi.c > > > > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ > > > > > > > > #include <linux/arm_ffa.h> > > > > #include <linux/errno.h> > > > > +#include <linux/rpmb.h> > > > > #include <linux/scatterlist.h> > > > > #include <linux/sched.h> > > > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > > > @@ -903,6 +904,10 @@ static int optee_ffa_probe(struct ffa_device *ffa_dev) > > > > optee->ffa.bottom_half_value = U32_MAX; > > > > optee->rpc_param_count = rpc_param_count; > > > > > > > > + if (IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RPMB) && > > > > + (sec_caps & OPTEE_FFA_SEC_CAP_RPMB_PROBE)) > > > > + optee->in_kernel_rpmb_routing = true; > > > > > > The SEC_CAP_RPMB_PROBE flag seems to be missing in optee_os at the moment. > > > If I remove this check here, the series works for me. > > > > You're right, I missed pushing those flags to optee_os. I've pushed them now. > > Thanks! Tested with optee 4.1 and your patches from > https://github.com/jenswi-linaro/optee_os/commits/rpmb_probe_v7/ > in Trusted Substrate uefi firmware > ( https://gitlab.com/Linaro/trustedsubstrate/meta-ts/ ) > and this series and a bunch of dependencies backported to > our Trusted Reference Stack > ( https://trs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ ) > 6.6.29 kernel on rockpi4b (rk3399 ARM64 SoC) with secure boot and > the optee side fTPM TA device used to create an encrypted rootfs with > systemd. Kernel side RPMB routing is in use and works for the TPM use cases. > Glad to see that you can get fTPM to work without tee-supplicant after this patch-set. > Full boot and test log (with unrelated test failures) > https://ledge.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/88692 > > root@trs-qemuarm64:~# cat /sys/class/tee/tee0/rpmb_routing_model > ... > kernel So coming back to the real question, do we really need this new rpmb_routing_model ABI? Did systemd still need it with no tee-supplicant dependency? IMHO, a user-space ABI requires use-case justification otherwise it's just going to add on maintenance burden. -Sumit > > Tested-by: Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cheers, > > -Mikko
