lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 07/14] tee: optee: add shared buffer registration functions
From
Date


On 29.09.17 16:06, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 09:04:04PM +0300, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>> From: Volodymyr Babchuk <vlad.babchuk@gmail.com>
>>
>> This change adds ops for shm_(un)register functions in tee interface.
>> Client application can use these functions to (un)register an own shared
>> buffer in OP-TEE address space. This allows zero copy data sharing between
>> Normal and Secure Worlds.
>>
>> Please note that while those functions were added to optee code,
>> it does not report to userspace that those functions are available.
>> OP-TEE code does not set TEE_GEN_CAP_REG_MEM flag. This flag will be
>> enabled only after all other features of dynamic shared memory will be
>> implemented in subsequent patches.
>
> While it's not adveritsed to the user, AFAICT the user could still
> invoke these via ioctls, right?

> Is there a problem if the user were to do so, or is it simply not useful
> without the other features?
Yes, user can invoke this via ioctl. And this buffer will be
registeredin OP-TEE. But user will not be able to use this registered
buffer, because optee driver does not know how to handle references to
registered buffers.

This is a complex feature and I tried to split it into different commits
to ease up review.

Probably, I can remove
+ .shm_register = optee_shm_register,
+ .shm_unregister = optee_shm_unregister,

from this patch, so user will be not able to call this functions at all.
How do you thing? Should I do this?

>
>> +int optee_shm_register(struct tee_context *ctx, struct tee_shm *shm,
>> + struct page **pages, size_t num_pages)
>> +{
>
>> + pages_array = optee_allocate_pages_array(num_pages);
>> + if (!pages_array)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>
>> + msg_arg->params->u.tmem.buf_ptr = virt_to_phys(pages_array) |
>> + tee_shm_get_page_offset(shm);
>
> This doesn't look right. Why is the shm page offset being orred-in to
> the pages_array physical address? They're completely separate objects.
They present the same registered shared buffer. You have a list of pages
and offset from the first page. Strictly speaking this is not buf_ptr
anymore, but it is named so...

This is a part of OP-TEE ABI. We considered different approaches at [1].
This fits into general ABI design.

[1] https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/pull/1232#issuecomment-301851514

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-29 17:38    [W:0.081 / U:0.880 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site