Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 28 Jan 2020 16:36:28 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
Cc:     broonie@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
        shawnguo@kernel.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, fabio.estevam@nxp.com,
        lkml@metux.net, loic.pallardy@st.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-imx@nxp.com,
        kernel@pengutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, system-dt@lists.openampproject.org,
        stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Introduce bus firewall controller framework
Message-ID: <20200128163628.GB30489@bogus>
References: <20200128153806.7780-1-benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200128153806.7780-1-benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:37:59PM +0100, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> Bus firewall framework aims to provide a kernel API to set the configuration
> of the harware blocks in charge of busses access control.
>
> Framework architecture is inspirated by pinctrl framework:
> - a default configuration could be applied before bind the driver.
>   If a configuration could not be applied the driver is not bind
>   to avoid doing accesses on prohibited regions.
> - configurations could be apllied dynamically by drivers.
> - device node provides the bus firewall configurations.
>
> An example of bus firewall controller is STM32 ETZPC hardware block
> which got 3 possible configurations:
> - trust: hardware blocks are only accessible by software running on trust
>   zone (i.e op-tee firmware).
> - non-secure: hardware blocks are accessible by non-secure software (i.e.
>   linux kernel).
> - coprocessor: hardware blocks are only accessible by the coprocessor.
> Up to 94 hardware blocks of the soc could be managed by ETZPC.
>

/me confused. Is ETZPC accessible from the non-secure kernel space to
begin with ? If so, is it allowed to configure hardware blocks as secure
or trusted ? I am failing to understand the overall design of a system
with ETZPC controller.

> At least two other hardware blocks can take benefits of this:
> - ARM TZC-400: http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.100325_0001_02_en/arm_corelink_tzc400_trustzone_address_space_controller_trm_100325_0001_02_en.pdf
>   which is able to manage up to 8 regions in address space.

I strongly have to disagree with the above and NACK any patch trying
to do so. AFAIK, no system designed has TZC with non-secure access.
So we simply can't access this in the kernel and hence need no driver
for the same. Please avoid adding above misleading information in future.

--
Regards,
Sudeep