[PATCH] tee: fix tee_ioctl_object_invoke_arg padding

[Jens Wiklander]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 9, 2025 at 4:54 AM Amirreza Zarrabi
<amirreza.zarrabi at oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/8/2025 11:54 PM, Harshal Dev wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/8/2025 5:50 PM, Sumit Garg via OP-TEE wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 04:24:17PM +1100, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 12/5/2025 12:27 AM, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 11:17 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd at kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The tee_ioctl_object_invoke_arg structure has padding on some
> >>>>> architectures but not on x86-32 and a few others:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> include/linux/tee.h:474:32: error: padding struct to align 'params' [-Werror=padded]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I expect that all current users of this are on architectures that do
> >>>>> have implicit padding here (arm64, arm, x86, riscv), so make the padding
> >>>>> explicit in order to avoid surprises if this later gets used elsewhere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: d5b8b0fa1775 ("tee: add TEE_IOCTL_PARAM_ATTR_TYPE_OBJREF")
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> The new interface showed up in 6.18, but I only came across this after
> >>>>> that was released. Changing it now is technically an ABI change on
> >>>>> architectures with unusual padding rules, so please consider carefully
> >>>>> whether we want to do it this way or not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Working around the ABI differences without an ABI change is possible,
> >>>>> but adds a lot of complexity for compat handling.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is currently only used by the recently introduced qcomtee backend
> >>>> driver. So it's only used on a few arm64 Qualcomm platforms right now.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we should take this patch, but let's hear what others think.
> >>
> >> Yeah since it's not an ABI issue on arm64 platforms where QTEE runs, so:
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg at oss.qualcomm.com>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Jens
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I agree. We should take this patch. As noted, there are not many
> >>> clients relying on it yet, so updating the userspace should
> >>> be straightforward.
> >>
> >> You should rather test without any userspace library update to test it's
> >> not an ABI issue. Just for correctness sake, you can update the library
> >> too.
> >>
> >
> > I'll take the time to test it at some point this week both with and without updating
> > the library ABI.
> >
>
> Summit, that was the plan from the beginning, that's why I did not add "Reviewed-by:"
> in the first place. Thanks Harshal for volunteering.

Are we good with this patch now?

Cheers,
Jens