Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-190681-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240527121340.3931987-1-jens.wiklander@linaro.org>
 <20240527121340.3931987-5-jens.wiklander@linaro.org> <fc3bfebb-78b7-428e-8da5-5221f4921faa@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <fc3bfebb-78b7-428e-8da5-5221f4921faa@linaro.org>
From: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 15:24:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHUa44G0bcK55RxNrN5sXiicBZ-BJtA46KpedfBdUSKsN8eUOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/4] optee: probe RPMB device using RPMB subsystem
To: Jerome Forissier <jerome.forissier@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, 
	op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, 
	Shyam Saini <shyamsaini@linux.microsoft.com>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, 
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>, 
	Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>, 
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Manuel Traut <manut@mecka.net>, 
	Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 3:00=E2=80=AFPM Jerome Forissier
<jerome.forissier@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 5/27/24 14:13, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> > Adds support in the OP-TEE drivers (both SMC and FF-A ABIs) to probe an=
d
> > use an RPMB device via the RPMB subsystem instead of passing the RPMB
> > frames via tee-supplicant in user space. A fallback mechanism is kept t=
o
> > route RPMB frames via tee-supplicant if the RPMB subsystem isn't
> > available.
> >
> > The OP-TEE RPC ABI is extended to support iterating over all RPMB
> > devices until one is found with the expected RPMB key already
> > programmed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>
> > Tested-by: Manuel Traut <manut@mecka.net>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-tee |  15 ++
> >  MAINTAINERS                               |   1 +
> >  drivers/tee/optee/core.c                  |  96 +++++++++++-
> >  drivers/tee/optee/device.c                |   7 +
> >  drivers/tee/optee/ffa_abi.c               |  14 ++
> >  drivers/tee/optee/optee_ffa.h             |   2 +
> >  drivers/tee/optee/optee_private.h         |  26 +++-
> >  drivers/tee/optee/optee_rpc_cmd.h         |  35 +++++
> >  drivers/tee/optee/optee_smc.h             |   2 +
> >  drivers/tee/optee/rpc.c                   | 177 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/tee/optee/smc_abi.c               |  14 ++
> >  11 files changed, 387 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-tee
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-tee b/Documentation/=
ABI/testing/sysfs-class-tee
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..c9144d16003e
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-tee
> > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> > +What:                /sys/class/tee/tee{,priv}X/rpmb_routing_model
>
> Wouldn't /sys/class/tee/teeX/rpmb_routing_model be good enough?

Doesn't the routing model concern tee-supplicant more than a TEE
client? Then it might make more sense to have
/sys/class/tee/teeprivX/rpmb_routing_model only. Keeping it for both
devices representing the same internal struct optee makes it easier to
find. Anyway, I don't mind removing one. Mikko, what do you prefer?

Cheers,
Jens