Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:1287:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d7csp4302046pxv; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 23:47:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwAYUi0xj1K+JsEbOC9I1IciHKH9ZHMV0o6heoJngq9sXfRB5dtKNyXzeeXXrFIdPpQD2Xr X-Received: by 2002:a92:d451:: with SMTP id r17mr20187997ilm.109.1626763661354; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 23:47:41 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1626763661; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=aOttI2pNKvMMgVeRoH3frgc5KmhKtvsv3eyPSQq8V8bdw6jXJnSMmHsme5sz9MTiFE ZjV2qWo3xHxA6FTzVe6L+PpD7UQLiZ6J28aGmGfNnEZ1VXtiINZn7seuy3h9bTjqTxCD cPP8N7NI7Jd2vdc1zZwY5RkDiB5TKEe/zVZc+v2O/zXb6BZRqeqKssN+b3IDv8IaTEUH eH7oYGa/9QWumcYNMdvzOalndjCAkXmPnmUkaAq9Czq9Wkf8rjxcpJ9SqOrHFzm+Z054 8HO0GU69Vuh2+C0gfR8Yksmw/QVrpZ8iSobmdc1kYhkdir1Izus2Hd3TFvotKrfPzYh2 AXXg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=6u28mRni0Cw47J0u2SXQYWYKsgAtL/6Mpg3s/eEUc94=; b=Eu1QEjBjK0VaEp0C5nr88Y1OTewS3hX6kvMMSqTppAaQFgU2xQbP+yopxVIZYVYdhp FMGxaovOTxWkBFJmxhKgl3L5ECP2wfimc4S6sdpqq3PIWLAiWtCOUYHf7LVKF/MQArWK ffrodl8AnjGPtiQvMKzZ3IDoK4Q/nz38/cuGVYxjMky9BiAJDBXJ1xORm6Cf0oWr6c5Z XcYsUjtMWD4ebwfSLwMMe3bD7AfbRihMqmdLU8tTIW0PhLOh952RvjxNQGzr7e+O7gRE 5+PwVRz9ItKs+nEN0vlIXGHsju2jM91/yh4DWZXcAXwwFSJjTta5e/Yz0plKWnc6xQYs 4ygw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=dwCxrpfI; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id e16si23283760ilm.91.2021.07.19.23.47.30; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 23:47:41 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=dwCxrpfI; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242465AbhGTGFy (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:05:54 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50324 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242886AbhGTGFo (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:05:44 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCE88C0613E1 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 23:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id d12so24728130wre.13 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 23:46:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6u28mRni0Cw47J0u2SXQYWYKsgAtL/6Mpg3s/eEUc94=; b=dwCxrpfI0MjLGWlnVBbScEpe6jcNStpztoWFiqh2qNaJ2ZM2mhtG+OQS2jEWjaUr5X ITRIAQDof81SzgMuYxeuEw58Ax7SJELveVJKnEEiIy2mW+/AqJwin/bCy2U8vMA0lTpf 8IOVxm5Oxd+ZscW+5G5440FrYCpo3symiMEIIvhFtVrNzGRTFovHP7gNRKIgGRXDreCH gxoIwEts1w1mL3U/Cn6ms42SuDrGsVW7NyxOYocZRLAQwRftVRYXblBooGwvXwN3Yd+E kOyOlcVB9imxpIXyitYPJU+62GuXqflhcSKC0WxK1h3f/iM543h8FJ5PCvDRD651IuMH k28g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6u28mRni0Cw47J0u2SXQYWYKsgAtL/6Mpg3s/eEUc94=; b=e21hPSGSgPY9WMOWlae4QK0IZlYwiN7fmo99HsCH27WCv744QL48N5JafNBHLWP17P RnUdzTYghFykTMx1JQIYfH4sa+S1/1ROAW36FfUUJuckdJYGoZ35L5pyko3xebKqielS FulJH3NbErsDc81Tf/Ea0gkuDGLUnrhhtcBIP8JhDB4N+3eBFrQgDz8jjH0xwNYfniIX mzRdgacfwO/VTZnFtQrsg71AIrDQ3ZlbfjeKEDJL0RTcy/vgNMIMGzqGVbw9oOLV+pKa 0LXMZvswNBLVandgck++MQipK/fS5I2kfAQmBr65W6wXfTf9+2VH6IQTRhJDcae/FQG7 4/XQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530eaVNO/xZO/WqXc/Si47IC7JXvGEjmMYBJHdue7e4zeDXJPi2x KsfCdiwrSxgG5fh0Yd3Ct0KlnNN86IUCIF4mVPfIlg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:178a:: with SMTP id e10mr34140578wrg.141.1626763570276; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 23:46:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210713111143.g6ztdakegs6ck25s@bogus> In-Reply-To: <20210713111143.g6ztdakegs6ck25s@bogus> From: Jens Wiklander Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 08:45:59 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Asynchronous notifications from secure world To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Etienne CARRIERE , Sumit Garg , Marc Zyngier , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arm-kernel , OP-TEE TrustedFirmware , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Doc Mailing List , Jerome Forissier , Vincent Guittot , Rob Herring , Jonathan Corbet , Ard Biesheuvel , Etienne Carriere Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:12 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 08:05:57AM +0000, Etienne CARRIERE wrote: > > Hello Sudeep and all, > > > > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 19:52, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sumit, > > > > > > I was holding off you reply as I didn't have all the background on this. > > > Achin did mention that this is preparatory work for FFA notifications. > > > I did mention to him that this is more than that, it is custom extension > > > to address what FF-A notification is trying to in standard way. Are you suggesting that we should use a hybrid implementation with FF-A for notifications and keep the rest as is for armv7-a? > > > > > > I share same opinion as Marc Z. From what I've read in this thread this has mainly been about using SGI notification and not whether asynchronous notification from OP-TEE on non-FF-A systems is good or bad. I assume Sumit was asking about SGI to find out why that wasn't used. This patch set uses SPI. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:22:23AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > > On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 18:16, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't care about OP-TEE. If you are proposing a contract between S > > > > > and NS, it has to be TEE and OS independent. That's how the > > > > > architecture works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, here we are not proposing a common contract among the S and NS > > > > world that every TEE (based on Arm TrustZone) will use to communicate > > > > with REE (Linux in our case) but rather an OP-TEE specific > > > > notifications feature that is built on top of OP-TEE specific ABIs. > > > > > > > > And I can see your arguments coming from an FFA perspective but there > > > > are platforms like the ones based on Armv7 which don't support FFA > > > > ABI. Maybe Jens can elaborate how this feature will fit in when FFA > > > > comes into picture? > > > > > > > > > > I can understand that but won't those platforms add the support both in > > > the kernel(current series) and secure world to address notifications. > > > While you could argue that it is small extension to what is already present > > > but I prefer they support FF-A is they need such a support instead of adding > > > custom mechanisms. It is hard to maintain and each vendor will deviate > > > from this custom mechanism and soon we will have bunch of them to handle. Regarding deviation, are we still talking about the OP-TEE driver? So far I haven't seen any vendor extensions at all in that driver. > > > > There exist armv7-a platforms that expect OP-TEE notification support and > > will not move the FF-A, like the stm32mp15. This platform won't move to FF-A > > mainly due to the memory cost of the added SPM layer and the device physical > > constraints. > > Fair enough on the use-case and the analysis for not being able to use FF-A. > As you may already know it doesn't simply this problem. This has been > discussed for years and FF-A was assumed to be the solution when FF-A > spec work started. > > > We have a usecase for OP-TEE notification. We're working on the integration > > of an SCMI server in OP-TEE. SCMI notification is a feature needed is this > > scope and it requires OP-TEE async notification means as those proposed > > here. > > > > I am aware of this use-case, I understand. But I can only share rants > which I know doesn't help much. > > > This OP-TEE async notif also brings a lot of value in OP-TEE as it allows a > > OP-TEE secure thread (i.e. executing a trusted application service) to > > gently wait on a secure interrupt (as a slow bus transaction completion or > > many other usecase) with the CPU relaxed. This support is provided by the > > proposed series. I believe existing device should be able to leverage this > > OP-TEE feature without needing their OP-TEE to move to the new FF-A > > interface. > > > > While I agree these are nice to have in OPTEE, the timing is just odd. > > We are trying hard to push FF-A as standard solution to address all such > issues that couldn't be solved with OPTEE + DT, now we are back to address > the same in parallel to FF-A. It's not exactly the same since the primary target here is armv7-a where introducing FF-A isn't an obvious choice in all cases. For OP-TEE armv7-a is special in the way that all secure world processing is handled by OP-TEE. The internal secure monitor already takes care of what's implemented in TF-A at EL3 for armv8-a. This isn't meant to compete with FF-A, it's to make sure that the OP-TEE armv7-a user base isn't left behind. This doesn't rule out FF-A support for armv7-a for those prepared to take that step. Cheers, Jens