[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/13] dt-bindings: treewide: add access-controllers description

On Fri, 05 Jan 2024 14:03:53 +0100, Gatien Chevallier wrote:
> access-controllers is an optional property that allows a peripheral to
> refer to one or more domain access controller(s).
>
> Description of this property is added to all peripheral binding files of
> the peripheral under the STM32 firewall controller. It allows an accurate
> representation of the hardware, where various peripherals are connected
> to a firewall bus. The firewall can then check the peripheral accesses
> before allowing its device to probe.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gatien Chevallier <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> Changes in V6:
> - Minor changes in commit message
> - Renamed access-controller to access-controllers
>
> Changes in V5:
> - Discarded review tags as the content has changed
> - Renamed feature-domains to access-controller
>
> Changes in V4:
> - Added Jonathan's tag for IIO
>
> Changes in V2:
> - Add missing "feature-domains" property declaration
> in bosch,m_can.yaml and st,stm32-cryp.yaml files
>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/st,stm32-cryp.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/st,stm32-hash.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/st,stm32-dma.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/st,stm32-dmamux.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/st,stm32-i2c.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/st,stm32-adc.yaml | 4 ++++
> .../devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/st,stm32-dfsdm-adc.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/st,stm32-dac.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/cec/st,stm32-cec.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st,stm32-dcmi.yaml | 4 ++++
> .../bindings/memory-controllers/st,stm32-fmc2-ebi.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stm32-lptimer.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stm32-timers.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arm,pl18x.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/bosch,m_can.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/stm32-dwmac.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-stm32-usbphyc.yaml | 4 ++++
> .../devicetree/bindings/regulator/st,stm32-vrefbuf.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/st,stm32-uart.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/st,stm32-i2s.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/st,stm32-sai.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/st,stm32-spdifrx.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/st,stm32-qspi.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/st,stm32-spi.yaml | 4 ++++
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.yaml | 4 ++++
> 26 files changed, 104 insertions(+)
>

Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>

2024-04-08 08:48:26

by Alexandre TORGUE

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/13] Introduce STM32 Firewall framework

Hi Gatien,

On 1/5/24 14:03, Gatien Chevallier wrote:
> Introduce STM32 Firewall framework for STM32MP1x and STM32MP2x
> platforms. STM32MP1x(ETZPC) and STM32MP2x(RIFSC) Firewall controllers
> register to the framework to offer firewall services such as access
> granting.
>
> This series of patches is a new approach on the previous STM32 system
> bus, history is available here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230127164040.1047583/
>
> The need for such framework arises from the fact that there are now
> multiple hardware firewalls implemented across multiple products.
> Drivers are shared between different products, using the same code.
> When it comes to firewalls, the purpose mostly stays the same: Protect
> hardware resources. But the implementation differs, and there are
> multiple types of firewalls: peripheral, memory, ...
>
> Some hardware firewall controllers such as the RIFSC implemented on
> STM32MP2x platforms may require to take ownership of a resource before
> being able to use it, hence the requirement for firewall services to
> take/release the ownership of such resources.
>
> On the other hand, hardware firewall configurations are becoming
> more and more complex. These mecanisms prevent platform crashes
> or other firewall-related incoveniences by denying access to some
> resources.
>
> The stm32 firewall framework offers an API that is defined in
> firewall controllers drivers to best fit the specificity of each
> firewall.
>
> For every peripherals protected by either the ETZPC or the RIFSC, the
> firewall framework checks the firewall controlelr registers to see if
> the peripheral's access is granted to the Linux kernel. If not, the
> peripheral is configured as secure, the node is marked populated,
> so that the driver is not probed for that device.
>
> The firewall framework relies on the access-controller device tree
> binding. It is used by peripherals to reference a domain access
> controller. In this case a firewall controller. The bus uses the ID
> referenced by the access-controller property to know where to look
> in the firewall to get the security configuration for the peripheral.
> This allows a device tree description rather than a hardcoded peripheral
> table in the bus driver.
>
> The STM32 ETZPC device is responsible for filtering accesses based on
> security level, or co-processor isolation for any resource connected
> to it.
>
> The RIFSC is responsible for filtering accesses based on Compartment
> ID / security level / privilege level for any resource connected to
> it.
>
> STM32MP13/15/25 SoC device tree files are updated in this series to
> implement this mecanism.
>

...

After minor cosmetic fixes, series applied on stm32-next.
Seen with Arnd: it will be part on my next PR and will come through
arm-soc tree.

Thanks
Alex

2024-04-09 17:14:16

by Rob Herring

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/13] Introduce STM32 Firewall framework

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 3:44 AM Alexandre TORGUE
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Gatien,
>
> On 1/5/24 14:03, Gatien Chevallier wrote:
> > Introduce STM32 Firewall framework for STM32MP1x and STM32MP2x
> > platforms. STM32MP1x(ETZPC) and STM32MP2x(RIFSC) Firewall controllers
> > register to the framework to offer firewall services such as access
> > granting.
> >
> > This series of patches is a new approach on the previous STM32 system
> > bus, history is available here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230127164040.1047583/
> >
> > The need for such framework arises from the fact that there are now
> > multiple hardware firewalls implemented across multiple products.
> > Drivers are shared between different products, using the same code.
> > When it comes to firewalls, the purpose mostly stays the same: Protect
> > hardware resources. But the implementation differs, and there are
> > multiple types of firewalls: peripheral, memory, ...
> >
> > Some hardware firewall controllers such as the RIFSC implemented on
> > STM32MP2x platforms may require to take ownership of a resource before
> > being able to use it, hence the requirement for firewall services to
> > take/release the ownership of such resources.
> >
> > On the other hand, hardware firewall configurations are becoming
> > more and more complex. These mecanisms prevent platform crashes
> > or other firewall-related incoveniences by denying access to some
> > resources.
> >
> > The stm32 firewall framework offers an API that is defined in
> > firewall controllers drivers to best fit the specificity of each
> > firewall.
> >
> > For every peripherals protected by either the ETZPC or the RIFSC, the
> > firewall framework checks the firewall controlelr registers to see if
> > the peripheral's access is granted to the Linux kernel. If not, the
> > peripheral is configured as secure, the node is marked populated,
> > so that the driver is not probed for that device.
> >
> > The firewall framework relies on the access-controller device tree
> > binding. It is used by peripherals to reference a domain access
> > controller. In this case a firewall controller. The bus uses the ID
> > referenced by the access-controller property to know where to look
> > in the firewall to get the security configuration for the peripheral.
> > This allows a device tree description rather than a hardcoded peripheral
> > table in the bus driver.
> >
> > The STM32 ETZPC device is responsible for filtering accesses based on
> > security level, or co-processor isolation for any resource connected
> > to it.
> >
> > The RIFSC is responsible for filtering accesses based on Compartment
> > ID / security level / privilege level for any resource connected to
> > it.
> >
> > STM32MP13/15/25 SoC device tree files are updated in this series to
> > implement this mecanism.
> >
>
> ...
>
> After minor cosmetic fixes, series applied on stm32-next.
> Seen with Arnd: it will be part on my next PR and will come through
> arm-soc tree.

And there's some new warnings in next with it:

1 venc@480e0000: 'access-controllers' does not match any of the
regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
1 vdec@480d0000: 'access-controllers' does not match any of the
regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'

Rob

2024-04-11 09:39:55

by Alexandre TORGUE

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/13] Introduce STM32 Firewall framework

Hi Rob

On 4/9/24 19:13, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 3:44 AM Alexandre TORGUE
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gatien,
>>
>> On 1/5/24 14:03, Gatien Chevallier wrote:
>>> Introduce STM32 Firewall framework for STM32MP1x and STM32MP2x
>>> platforms. STM32MP1x(ETZPC) and STM32MP2x(RIFSC) Firewall controllers
>>> register to the framework to offer firewall services such as access
>>> granting.
>>>
>>> This series of patches is a new approach on the previous STM32 system
>>> bus, history is available here:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230127164040.1047583/
>>>
>>> The need for such framework arises from the fact that there are now
>>> multiple hardware firewalls implemented across multiple products.
>>> Drivers are shared between different products, using the same code.
>>> When it comes to firewalls, the purpose mostly stays the same: Protect
>>> hardware resources. But the implementation differs, and there are
>>> multiple types of firewalls: peripheral, memory, ...
>>>
>>> Some hardware firewall controllers such as the RIFSC implemented on
>>> STM32MP2x platforms may require to take ownership of a resource before
>>> being able to use it, hence the requirement for firewall services to
>>> take/release the ownership of such resources.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, hardware firewall configurations are becoming
>>> more and more complex. These mecanisms prevent platform crashes
>>> or other firewall-related incoveniences by denying access to some
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> The stm32 firewall framework offers an API that is defined in
>>> firewall controllers drivers to best fit the specificity of each
>>> firewall.
>>>
>>> For every peripherals protected by either the ETZPC or the RIFSC, the
>>> firewall framework checks the firewall controlelr registers to see if
>>> the peripheral's access is granted to the Linux kernel. If not, the
>>> peripheral is configured as secure, the node is marked populated,
>>> so that the driver is not probed for that device.
>>>
>>> The firewall framework relies on the access-controller device tree
>>> binding. It is used by peripherals to reference a domain access
>>> controller. In this case a firewall controller. The bus uses the ID
>>> referenced by the access-controller property to know where to look
>>> in the firewall to get the security configuration for the peripheral.
>>> This allows a device tree description rather than a hardcoded peripheral
>>> table in the bus driver.
>>>
>>> The STM32 ETZPC device is responsible for filtering accesses based on
>>> security level, or co-processor isolation for any resource connected
>>> to it.
>>>
>>> The RIFSC is responsible for filtering accesses based on Compartment
>>> ID / security level / privilege level for any resource connected to
>>> it.
>>>
>>> STM32MP13/15/25 SoC device tree files are updated in this series to
>>> implement this mecanism.
>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> After minor cosmetic fixes, series applied on stm32-next.
>> Seen with Arnd: it will be part on my next PR and will come through
>> arm-soc tree.
>
> And there's some new warnings in next with it:
>
> 1 venc@480e0000: 'access-controllers' does not match any of the
> regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
> 1 vdec@480d0000: 'access-controllers' does not match any of the
> regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'

Yes I noticed it to my colleague. YAML update has been sent for VEND/VDENC.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/

As soon as it is acked I could merge it in my tree.

Alex

>
> Rob

2024-04-24 05:58:30

by Saravana Kannan

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 06/13] of: property: fw_devlink: Add support for "access-controller"

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 5:03 AM Gatien Chevallier
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Allows tracking dependencies between devices and their access
> controller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gatien Chevallier <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>

Please cc me on fw_devlink patches. Also, this patch is breaking the
norm below. Please send a fix up patch.

> ---
> Changes in V9:
> - Added Rob's review tag
>
> Changes in V6:
> - Renamed access-controller to access-controllers
>
> Changes in V5:
> - Rename feature-domain* to access-control*
>
> Patch not present in V1
>
> drivers/of/property.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/property.c b/drivers/of/property.c
> index afdaefbd03f6..7f737eac91b2 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/property.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/property.c
> @@ -1268,6 +1268,7 @@ DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(leds, "leds", NULL)
> DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(backlight, "backlight", NULL)
> DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(panel, "panel", NULL)
> DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(msi_parent, "msi-parent", "#msi-cells")
> +DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(access_controllers, "access-controllers", "#access-controller-cells")
> DEFINE_SUFFIX_PROP(regulators, "-supply", NULL)
> DEFINE_SUFFIX_PROP(gpio, "-gpio", "#gpio-cells")
>
> @@ -1363,6 +1364,7 @@ static const struct supplier_bindings of_supplier_bindings[] = {
> { .parse_prop = parse_regulators, },
> { .parse_prop = parse_gpio, },
> { .parse_prop = parse_gpios, },
> + { .parse_prop = parse_access_controllers, },

All the simple properties are listed before the suffix ones as the
suffix checks are more expensive. So, you should have inserted this
right before the suffix properties. Also, there's a merge conflict in
linux-next. So make sure you take that into account when sending the
fix up and picking the order.

-Saravana

> {}
> };

>
> --
> 2.35.3
>