lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 0/4] Introduce TEE bus driver framework
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 13:09, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 16:35, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 06:50, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > This series introduces a generic TEE bus driver concept for TEE based
> > > kernel drivers which would like to communicate with TEE based devices/
> > > services.
> > >
> > > Patch #1 adds TEE bus concept where devices/services are identified via
> > > Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) and drivers register a table of
> > > device UUIDs which they can support. This concept also allows for device
> > > enumeration to be specific to corresponding TEE implementation like
> > > OP-TEE etc.
> > >
> > > Patch #2 adds supp_nowait flag for non-blocking requests arising via
> > > TEE internal client interface.
> > >
> > > Patch #3 adds TEE bus device enumeration support for OP-TEE. OP-TEE
> > > provides a pseudo TA to enumerate TAs which can act as devices/services
> > > for TEE bus.
> > >
> > > Patch #4 adds OP-TEE based hwrng driver which act as TEE bus driver.
> > > On ARM SoC's with TrustZone enabled, peripherals like entropy sources
> > > might not be accessible to normal world (linux in this case) and rather
> > > accessible to secure world (OP-TEE in this case) only. So this driver
> > > aims to provides a generic interface to OP-TEE based random number
> > > generator service.
> > >
> > > Example case is Developerbox based on Socionext's Synquacer SoC [1]
> > > which provides 7 thermal sensors accessible from secure world only which
> > > could be used as entropy sources (thermal/measurement noise).
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.96boards.org/product/developerbox/
> > >
> > > Changes in v6:
> > >
> > > 1. Incorporate some nitpicks in patch #1 and #3.
> > > 2. Bundle all statics in a data structure in patch #4 and use dev_*
> > > instead of pr_*.
> > > 3. Add reviewed-by tags for patch #1, #2 and #3.
> > >
> > > Changes in v5:
> > >
> > > 1. Add support in module device table for TEE bus devices.
> > > 2. Correct license for optee-rng module.
> > >
> > > Changes in v4:
> > >
> > > 1. Use typedef instead of single member tee_client_device_id struct.
> > > 2. Incorporate TEE bus nitpicks.
> > >
> > > Changes in v3:
> > >
> > > 1. Fixed bus error path in Patch #1.
> > > 2. Reversed order of Patch #2 and #3.
> > > 3. Fixed miscellaneous syntax comments and memory leak.
> > > 4. Added comments in Patch #2 for supp_nowait flag.
> > >
> > > Changes in v2:
> > >
> > > Based on review comments, the scope of this series has increased as
> > > follows:
> > >
> > > 1. Added TEE bus driver framework.
> > > 2. Added OP-TEE based device enumeration.
> > > 3. Register optee-rng driver as TEE bus driver.
> > > 4. Removed DT dependency for optee-rng device UUID.
> > > 5. Added supp_nowait flag.
> > >
> > > Sumit Garg (4):
> > > tee: add bus driver framework for TEE based devices
> > > tee: add supp_nowait flag in tee_context struct
> > > tee: optee: add TEE bus device enumeration support
> > > hwrng: add OP-TEE based rng driver
> > >
> >
> > For this series
> >
> > Tested-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> >
>
> Thanks. BTW, Jens has created a GIT PULL[1] to incorporate this patch-set.
>
> > although I had to load optee.ko manually in order for the udev
> > autoload of optee_rng to trigger.
>
> Did you built OP-TEE module as out-of-tree? OP-TEE by-default is
> built-in kernel module as per following configs in default defconfig:
>
> CONFIG_TEE=y
> CONFIG_OPTEE=y
>

Yes, but the distros will carry it as a module.

> > Not sure where the discussion went
> > last time, but could we please add "linaro,optee-tz" as a DT modalias
> > to the optee.ko module in any case?
> >
>
> This change is already part of your RFC patch [2] and I agree to make
> OP-TEE as platform driver.
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/4/104
> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/27/196
>

Indeed, but iirc there was a question from Jens and I wasn't sure it
had been answered in the mean time.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-12 13:11    [W:0.171 / U:1.076 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site