Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-70182-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:50:01 -0600
From: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>, 
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>, Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>, Guru Das Srinagesh <quic_gurus@quicinc.com>, 
	Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com>, Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>, 
	Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>, Srini Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>, 
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kernel@quicinc.com, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>, Deepti Jaggi <quic_djaggi@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 11/12] firmware: qcom: scm: clarify the comment in
 qcom_scm_pas_init_image()
Message-ID: <ihz4jczbhn3gdcs6nkgnzpyv3577ebd73qbkynw6jz7ciy4fu3@kxqu7olrrely>
References: <20240205182810.58382-1-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <20240205182810.58382-12-brgl@bgdev.pl>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240205182810.58382-12-brgl@bgdev.pl>

On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 07:28:09PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> 
> The "memory protection" mechanism mentioned in the comment is the SHM
> Bridge. This is also the reason why we do not convert this call to using
> the TZ memory allocator.
> 

No, this mechanism predates shmbridge.

> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> Tested-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com> # sc8280xp-lenovo-thinkpad-x13s
> Tested-by: Deepti Jaggi <quic_djaggi@quicinc.com> #sa8775p-ride
> Reviewed-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c | 10 +++++++---
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
> index 839773270a21..7ba5cff6e4e7 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c
> @@ -563,9 +563,13 @@ int qcom_scm_pas_init_image(u32 peripheral, const void *metadata, size_t size,
>  	struct qcom_scm_res res;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * During the scm call memory protection will be enabled for the meta
> -	 * data blob, so make sure it's physically contiguous, 4K aligned and
> -	 * non-cachable to avoid XPU violations.

What this is saying is that the memory will be made unaccessible to
Linux, so it needs to be contiguous and aligned.

> +	 * During the SCM call the hypervisor will make the buffer containing
> +	 * the program data into an SHM Bridge.

Are you saying that the hypervisor will convert this memory to a
shmbridge, and then pass it to TrustZone?

> This is why we exceptionally
> +	 * must not use the TrustZone memory allocator here as - depending on
> +	 * Kconfig - it may already use the SHM Bridge mechanism internally.
> +	 *

"it may already"? You describe above that we shouldn't pass shmbridge
memory, and the other case never deals with shmbridges. So, I think you
can omit this part.

> +	 * If we pass a buffer that is already part of an SHM Bridge to this
> +	 * call, it will fail.

Could this be because the consumer of this buffer operates in EL2, and
not TZ?

Regards,
Bjorn

>  	 */
>  	mdata_buf = dma_alloc_coherent(__scm->dev, size, &mdata_phys,
>  				       GFP_KERNEL);
> -- 
> 2.40.1
>