On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 08:34:42PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 12:38:56PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarz...@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > Add driver for the vTPM defined by the AMD SVSM spec [1].
> > >
> > > The specification defines a protocol that a SEV-SNP guest OS can use to
> > > discover and talk to a vTPM emulated by the Secure VM Service Module
> > > (SVSM)
> > > in the guest context, but at a more privileged level (VMPL0).
> > >
> > > The new tpm-svsm platform driver uses two functions exposed by x86/sev
> > > to verify that the device is actually emulated by the platform and to
> > > send commands and receive responses.
> > >
> > > The device cannot be hot-plugged/unplugged as it is emulated by the
> > > platform, so we can use module_platform_driver_probe(). The probe
> > > function will only check whether in the current runtime configuration,
> > > SVSM is present and provides a vTPM.
> > >
> > > This device does not support interrupts and sends responses to commands
> > > synchronously. In order to have .recv() called just after .send() in
> > > tpm_try_transmit(), the .status() callback returns 0, and both
> > > .req_complete_mask and .req_complete_val are set to 0.
> > >
> > > [1] "Secure VM Service Module for SEV-SNP Guests"
> > > Publication # 58019 Revision: 1.00
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarz...@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > v5:
> > > - removed cancel/status/req_* ops after rebase on master that cotains
> > > commit 980a573621ea ("tpm: Make chip->{status,cancel,req_canceled} opt")
> > > v4:
> > > - moved "asm" includes after the "linux" includes [Tom]
> > > - allocated buffer separately [Tom/Jarkko/Jason]
> > > v3:
> > > - removed send_recv() ops and followed the ftpm driver implementing
> > > .status,
> > > .req_complete_mask, .req_complete_val, etc. [Jarkko]
> > > - removed link to the spec because those URLs are unstable [Borislav]
> > > ---
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_svsm.c | 135 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > drivers/char/tpm/Kconfig | 10 +++
> > > drivers/char/tpm/Makefile | 1 +
> > > 3 files changed, 146 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644 drivers/char/tpm/tpm_svsm.c
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_svsm.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_svsm.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..04c532421ff2
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_svsm.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > > +/*
> > > + * Copyright (C) 2025 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> > > + *
> > > + * Driver for the vTPM defined by the AMD SVSM spec [1].
> > > + *
> > > + * The specification defines a protocol that a SEV-SNP guest OS can use
> > > to
> > > + * discover and talk to a vTPM emulated by the Secure VM Service Module
> > > (SVSM)
> > > + * in the guest context, but at a more privileged level (usually VMPL0).
> > > + *
> > > + * [1] "Secure VM Service Module for SEV-SNP Guests"
> > > + * Publication # 58019 Revision: 1.00
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > +#include <linux/tpm_svsm.h>
> > > +
> > > +#include <asm/sev.h>
> > > +
> > > +#include "tpm.h"
> > > +
> > > +struct tpm_svsm_priv {
> > > + void *buffer;
> > > + u8 locality;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static int tpm_svsm_send(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t len)
> > > +{
> > > + struct tpm_svsm_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = svsm_vtpm_cmd_request_fill(priv->buffer, priv->locality, buf,
> > > len);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * The SVSM call uses the same buffer for the command and for the
> > > + * response, so after this call, the buffer will contain the response
> > > + * that can be used by .recv() op.
> > > + */
> > > + return snp_svsm_vtpm_send_command(priv->buffer);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int tpm_svsm_recv(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t len)
> > > +{
> > > + struct tpm_svsm_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * The internal buffer contains the response after we send the command
> > > + * to SVSM.
> > > + */
> > > + return svsm_vtpm_cmd_response_parse(priv->buffer, buf, len);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static struct tpm_class_ops tpm_chip_ops = {
> > > + .flags = TPM_OPS_AUTO_STARTUP,
> > > + .recv = tpm_svsm_recv,
> > > + .send = tpm_svsm_send,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static int __init tpm_svsm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > + struct tpm_svsm_priv *priv;
> > > + struct tpm_chip *chip;
> > > + int err;
> > > +
> > > + if (!snp_svsm_vtpm_probe())
> > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > +
> > > + priv = devm_kmalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!priv)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * The maximum buffer supported is one page (see SVSM_VTPM_MAX_BUFFER
> > > + * in tpm_svsm.h).
> > > + */
> > > + priv->buffer = (void *)devm_get_free_pages(dev, GFP_KERNEL, 0);
> > > + if (!priv->buffer)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * FIXME: before implementing locality we need to agree what it means
> > > + * for the SNP SVSM vTPM
> > > + */
> > > + priv->locality = 0;
> >
> > I don't think we want FIXME's to mainline. Instead, don't declare the
> > field at all if you don't use it. Just pass zero to *_request_fill().
> >
> > Maybe "not have the field" is even a better reminder than a random fixme
> > comment?
>
> Yeah, I had thought the same, but then I left it that way because it was
> there from the first RFC and I saw several FIXME in the codebase, but I
> agree with you, I'll remove the field completely in v6.
>
> That said, `struct tpm_svsm_priv` with this change will only contain the
> pointer to the buffer, does it make sense to have that structure (maybe for
> the future it's easier to add new fields), or do I remove it and use
> dev_set_drvdata() to store the pointer to the buffer directly?
I'll put it like this: I would not NAK this for having a struct with
a single field. Either way works for me.
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>
BR, Jarkko
