Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <df19cba8bfa3adf67e32e36f6c9163008a278c68.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] rpmb subsystem, uapi and virtio-rpmb driver
From:   Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Alex =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, maxim.uvarov@linaro.org,
        joakim.bech@linaro.org, ulf.hansson@linaro.org,
        ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org, arnd@linaro.org,
        ruchika.gupta@linaro.org, tomas.winkler@intel.com,
        yang.huang@intel.com, bing.zhu@intel.com,
        Matti.Moell@opensynergy.com, hmo@opensynergy.com,
        linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 07 Apr 2022 18:28:59 +0200
In-Reply-To: <b95bdfa9-4373-8f54-677e-4a764061c61c@acm.org>
References: <20220405093759.1126835-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org>
         <8b3ce88f65fd11523a4d2daab3c617f7089eb1ce.camel@gmail.com>
         <87r16bk013.fsf@linaro.org>
         <aeb64d1c4bbddfd8463c07a40ab1fc78be0d158d.camel@gmail.com>
         <87ee2ajuky.fsf@linaro.org>
         <c18a2b359046a14250cafa5a619dbe53f2872b5a.camel@gmail.com>
         <e72812a9-1e5b-a826-d490-62ed23d94116@acm.org>
         <310d20a04bdaf40672592d9ffa950606d2ceaff7.camel@gmail.com>
         <b95bdfa9-4373-8f54-677e-4a764061c61c@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.0-1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2022-04-06 at 13:20 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 4/6/22 11:12, Bean Huo wrote:
> > It is from the ufs-utils.
> >=20
> > So, do you vote to add the UFS RPMB driver based on this new
> > framework
> > to resolve this conflict?
>=20
> Are any applications using the RPMB code from ufs-utils? It seems to
> me=20
> that the ufs-utils code doe not handle SCSI unit attentions
> correctly.=20
> If a POWER ON unit attention is received as reply to a SECURITY
> PROTOCOL=20
> OUT transaction, the write counter should be reread instead of
> retrying=20
> the SECURITY PROTOCOL OUT command with the same write counter.
>=20

Not much sure how customers use this tool, based on my little
information from the field, the customer developed their own RPMB code
in the application. Here utils code is good example for them to study
and verify RPMB functinalities.

> Regarding adding a UFS RPMB driver: that seems useful to me since=20
> multiple applications make use of the UFS RPMB functionality. My=20
> understanding is that currently storageproxyd multiplexes UFS RPMB=20
> accesses in Android.
>=20

I have the same opinion with you, if we have an unified RPMB access
interface, and adding RPMB driver in the kernel, thus is better to
manage RPMB.

Kind regards,
Bean

> Thanks,
>=20
> Bart.