Hi,
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 06:21:27PM +0100, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
> The new TEE remoteproc device is used to manage remote firmware in a
> secure, trusted context. The 'st,stm32mp1-m4-tee' compatibility is
> introduced to delegate the loading of the firmware to the trusted
> execution context. In such cases, the firmware should be signed and
> adhere to the image format defined by the TEE.
>
> A new "to_attach" field is introduced to differentiate the use cases
> "firmware loaded by the boot stage" and "firmware loaded by the TEE".
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliq...@foss.st.com>
> ---
> V2 to V3 update:
> - remove stm32_rproc_tee_elf_sanity_check(), stm32_rproc_tee_elf_load()
> stm32_rproc_tee_elf_find_loaded_rsc_table() and stm32_rproc_tee_start()
> that are bnow unused
> - use new rproc::alt_boot field to sepcify that the alternate fboot method is
> used
> - use stm32_rproc::to_attach field to differenciate attch mode from
> remoteproc tee boot mode.
> - remove the used of stm32_rproc::fw_loaded
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> index fcc0001e2657..9cfcf66462e0 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
> #include <linux/reset.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/tee_remoteproc.h>
> #include <linux/workqueue.h>
>
> #include "remoteproc_internal.h"
> @@ -49,6 +50,9 @@
> #define M4_STATE_STANDBY 4
> #define M4_STATE_CRASH 5
>
> +/* Remote processor unique identifier aligned with the Trusted Execution
> Environment definitions */
> +#define STM32_MP1_M4_PROC_ID 0
> +
> struct stm32_syscon {
> struct regmap *map;
> u32 reg;
> @@ -90,6 +94,8 @@ struct stm32_rproc {
> struct stm32_mbox mb[MBOX_NB_MBX];
> struct workqueue_struct *workqueue;
> bool hold_boot_smc;
> + bool to_attach;
> + struct tee_rproc *trproc;
> void __iomem *rsc_va;
> };
>
> @@ -253,10 +259,30 @@ static int stm32_rproc_release(struct rproc *rproc)
> return err;
> }
> }
> + ddata->to_attach = false;
>
> return err;
> }
>
> +static int stm32_rproc_tee_attach(struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
> + /* Nothing to do, remote proc already started by the secured context. */
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int stm32_rproc_tee_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
> + int err;
> +
> + stm32_rproc_request_shutdown(rproc);
> +
> + err = tee_rproc_stop(rproc);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + return stm32_rproc_release(rproc);
> +}
> +
> static int stm32_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
> {
> struct device *dev = rproc->dev.parent;
> @@ -637,10 +663,14 @@ stm32_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc,
> size_t *table_sz)
> {
> struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
> struct device *dev = rproc->dev.parent;
> + struct tee_rproc *trproc = ddata->trproc;
> phys_addr_t rsc_pa;
> u32 rsc_da;
> int err;
>
> + if (trproc && !ddata->to_attach)
> + return tee_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table(rproc, table_sz);
> +
Why do we need a flag at all? Why can't st_rproc_tee_ops::get_loaded_rsc_table
be set to tee_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table()?
> /* The resource table has already been mapped, nothing to do */
> if (ddata->rsc_va)
> goto done;
> @@ -693,8 +723,20 @@ static const struct rproc_ops st_rproc_ops = {
> .get_boot_addr = rproc_elf_get_boot_addr,
> };
>
> +static const struct rproc_ops st_rproc_tee_ops = {
> + .prepare = stm32_rproc_prepare,
> + .start = tee_rproc_start,
> + .stop = stm32_rproc_tee_stop,
> + .attach = stm32_rproc_tee_attach,
> + .kick = stm32_rproc_kick,
> + .get_loaded_rsc_table = stm32_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table,
> + .find_loaded_rsc_table = tee_rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table,
> + .load = tee_rproc_load_fw,
> +};
> +
> static const struct of_device_id stm32_rproc_match[] = {
> - { .compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4" },
> + {.compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4",},
> + {.compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4-tee",},
> {},
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, stm32_rproc_match);
> @@ -853,6 +895,7 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> struct stm32_rproc *ddata;
> struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> + struct tee_rproc *trproc = NULL;
> struct rproc *rproc;
> unsigned int state;
> int ret;
> @@ -861,12 +904,33 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - rproc = rproc_alloc(dev, np->name, &st_rproc_ops, NULL, sizeof(*ddata));
> - if (!rproc)
> - return -ENOMEM;
This patch doesn't apply to rproc-next - please rebase.
> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "st,stm32mp1-m4-tee")) {
> + /*
> + * Delegate the firmware management to the secure context.
> + * The firmware loaded has to be signed.
> + */
> + trproc = tee_rproc_register(dev, STM32_MP1_M4_PROC_ID);
> + if (IS_ERR(trproc)) {
> + dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(trproc),
> + "signed firmware not supported by TEE\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(trproc);
> + }
> + }
>
> - ddata = rproc->priv;
> + rproc = rproc_alloc(dev, np->name,
> + trproc ? &st_rproc_tee_ops : &st_rproc_ops,
> + NULL, sizeof(*ddata));
> + if (!rproc) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto free_tee;
> + }
>
> + ddata = rproc->priv;
> + ddata->trproc = trproc;
My opinion hasn't changed from the previous patchet, i.e tee_rproc should be
folded in struct rproc as rproc::tee_interface.
More comments to come shortly...
> + if (trproc) {
> + rproc->alt_boot = true;
> + trproc->rproc = rproc;
> + }
> rproc_coredump_set_elf_info(rproc, ELFCLASS32, EM_NONE);
>
> ret = stm32_rproc_parse_dt(pdev, ddata, &rproc->auto_boot);
> @@ -881,8 +945,10 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> if (ret)
> goto free_rproc;
>
> - if (state == M4_STATE_CRUN)
> + if (state == M4_STATE_CRUN) {
> rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED;
> + ddata->to_attach = true;
> + }
>
> rproc->has_iommu = false;
> ddata->workqueue = create_workqueue(dev_name(dev));
> @@ -916,6 +982,10 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> device_init_wakeup(dev, false);
> }
> rproc_free(rproc);
> +free_tee:
> + if (trproc)
> + tee_rproc_unregister(trproc);
> +
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -923,6 +993,7 @@ static void stm32_rproc_remove(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> {
> struct rproc *rproc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
> + struct tee_rproc *trproc = ddata->trproc;
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>
> if (atomic_read(&rproc->power) > 0)
> @@ -937,6 +1008,8 @@ static void stm32_rproc_remove(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> device_init_wakeup(dev, false);
> }
> rproc_free(rproc);
> + if (trproc)
> + tee_rproc_unregister(trproc);
> }
>
> static int stm32_rproc_suspend(struct device *dev)
> --
> 2.25.1
>
