Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [Tee-dev] [PATCHv8 1/3] optee: use uuid for sysfs driver entry
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>
Cc:     Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov@linaro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@linaro.org>,
        "tee-dev @ lists . linaro . org" <tee-dev@lists.linaro.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, peterhuewe@gmx.de
References: <20200604175851.758-1-maxim.uvarov@linaro.org>
 <20200604175851.758-2-maxim.uvarov@linaro.org>
 <CAFA6WYNVk1RcaqnL0FGyYkB+hGkgyqeOMsSKyySL=zfCdNUZXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b9960a51-7e00-4992-eed5-bd43e7f27b43@forissier.org>
 <CAFA6WYM6XBduokYOdnWD6m+To=6k2SMbXU=HzK_Enk9h-s7VBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFA6WYNpVvkzgbBfXc1C10mKC6C6q_G1+c-ypg4s1pb0KDPCvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1592507935.15159.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <CAFA6WYMqOS+P-c4FznQ5vOKvonnKN4Z6BqTipOkrY3gMENLfeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1592578844.4369.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <CAFA6WYPCmZZ1HK-w8fQ2xaNywAZz9W21_fBOnbc35dT30sn7oQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1593012069.28403.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
From:   Jerome Forissier <jerome@forissier.org>
Message-ID: <3aa8705a-0342-25ea-00c4-d5370d91ddb4@forissier.org>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:44:45 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1593012069.28403.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 6/24/20 5:21 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-06-24 at 16:17 +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
>> Apologies for delay in my reply as I was busy with some other stuff.
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 20:30, James Bottomley
>> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>> it's about consistency with what the kernel types mean.  When some
>>> checker detects your using little endian operations on a big endian
>>> structure (like in the prink for instance) they're going to keep
>>> emailing you about it.
>>
>> As mentioned above, using different terminology is meant to cause
>> more confusion than just difference in endianness which is manageable
>> inside TEE.
>>
>> And I think it's safe to say that the kernel implements UUID in big
>> endian format and thus uses %pUb whereas OP-TEE implements UUID in
>> little endian format and thus uses %pUl.
> 
> So what I think you're saying is that if we still had uuid_be and
> uuid_le you'd use uuid_le, because that's exactly the structure
> described in the docs.  But because we renamed
> 
> uuid_be -> uuid_t
> uuid_le -> guid_t
> 
> You can't use guid_t as a kernel type because it has the wrong name?

Let me try to clear the confusion that I introduce myself I believe :-/
IMO:

- optee_register_device(const uuid_t *device_uuid) *is* the correct
prototype.
- device_uuid is *guaranteed* to be BE because OP-TEE makes this
guarantee (it converts from its internal LE representation to BE when
enumerating the devices, but it doesn't matter to the kernel).
- Therefore %pUb is the correct format.

I'm sorry for doubting the BE order initially. I am so used to OP-TEE
using LE internally, that I missed the fact that we have an explicit
conversion...

Does this sound good?

Thanks,
-- 
Jerome