Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 07/14] tee: optee: add shared buffer registration
 functions
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        tee-dev@lists.linaro.org, Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
        Volodymyr Babchuk <vlad.babchuk@gmail.com>
References: <1506621851-6929-1-git-send-email-volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com>
 <1506621851-6929-8-git-send-email-volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com>
 <20170929130643.GE5781@leverpostej>
From: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com>
Message-ID: <b0524d62-c72e-f884-cb78-9377e929dea7@epam.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 18:37:00 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170929130643.GE5781@leverpostej>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Sep 2017 15:37:04.2175 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: b41b72d0-4e9f-4c26-8a69-f949f367c91d
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB6PR0301MB2136
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2363
Lines: 59


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