[RFC PATCH] tee: tstee: Add initial Trusted Services TEE driver

[Sumit Garg]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 at 19:29, Balint Dobszay <balint.dobszay at arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 19 Oct 2023, at 16:16, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 1:14 PM Sumit Garg <sumit.garg at linaro.org> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 13:27, Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander at linaro.org> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 1:38 PM Sumit Garg <sumit.garg at linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 21:11, Balint Dobszay <balint.dobszay at arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 3 Oct 2023, at 17:42, Sumit Garg wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 20:56, Balint Dobszay <balint.dobszay at arm.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>>>>>> +static int tstee_invoke_func(struct tee_context *ctx, struct tee_ioctl_invoke_arg *arg,
> >>>>>>> +                            struct tee_param *param)
> >>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>> +       struct tstee *tstee = tee_get_drvdata(ctx->teedev);
> >>>>>>> +       struct ffa_device *ffa_dev = tstee->ffa_dev;
> >>>>>>> +       struct ts_context_data *ctxdata = ctx->data;
> >>>>>>> +       struct ffa_send_direct_data ffa_data;
> >>>>>>> +       struct tee_shm *shm = NULL;
> >>>>>>> +       struct ts_session *sess;
> >>>>>>> +       u32 req_len, ffa_args[5] = {};
> >>>>>>> +       int shm_id, rc;
> >>>>>>> +       u8 iface_id;
> >>>>>>> +       u64 handle;
> >>>>>>> +       u16 opcode;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +       mutex_lock(&ctxdata->mutex);
> >>>>>>> +       sess = find_session(ctxdata, arg->session);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +       /* Do this while holding the mutex to make sure that the session wasn't closed meanwhile */
> >>>>>>> +       if (sess)
> >>>>>>> +               iface_id = sess->iface_id;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +       mutex_unlock(&ctxdata->mutex);
> >>>>>>> +       if (!sess)
> >>>>>>> +               return -EINVAL;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +       opcode = lower_16_bits(arg->func);
> >>>>>>> +       shm_id = lower_32_bits(param[0].u.value.a);
> >>>>>>> +       req_len = lower_32_bits(param[0].u.value.b);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +       if (shm_id != 0) {
> >>>>>>> +               shm = tee_shm_get_from_id(ctx, shm_id);
> >>>>>>> +               if (IS_ERR(shm))
> >>>>>>> +                       return PTR_ERR(shm);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +               if (shm->size < req_len) {
> >>>>>>> +                       pr_err("request doesn't fit into shared memory buffer\n");
> >>>>>>> +                       rc = -EINVAL;
> >>>>>>> +                       goto out;
> >>>>>>> +               }
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +               handle = shm->sec_world_id;
> >>>>>>> +       } else {
> >>>>>>> +               handle = FFA_INVALID_MEM_HANDLE;
> >>>>>>> +       }
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +       ffa_args[TS_RPC_CTRL_REG] = TS_RPC_CTRL_PACK_IFACE_OPCODE(iface_id, opcode);
> >>>>>>> +       ffa_args[TS_RPC_SERVICE_MEM_HANDLE_LSW] = lower_32_bits(handle);
> >>>>>>> +       ffa_args[TS_RPC_SERVICE_MEM_HANDLE_MSW] = upper_32_bits(handle);
> >>>>>>> +       ffa_args[TS_RPC_SERVICE_REQ_LEN] = req_len;
> >>>>>>> +       ffa_args[TS_RPC_SERVICE_CLIENT_ID] = 0;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +       arg_list_to_ffa_data(ffa_args, &ffa_data);
> >>>>>>> +       rc = ffa_dev->ops->msg_ops->sync_send_receive(ffa_dev, &ffa_data);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I haven't dug deeper into the ABI yet, which is something I will look
> >>>>>> into. But these RPC commands caught my attention. Are these RPC calls
> >>>>>> blocking in nature? Is there a possibility that these could cause CPU
> >>>>>> stalls? Do the Linux interrupts remain unhandled until the RPC calls
> >>>>>> return?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, that is correct. We did encounter CPU stalls indeed, our solution
> >>>>> was to enable preemption of S-EL0 SPs in OP-TEE [3] which solved the
> >>>>> issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would have preferred to unite FFA_INTERRUPT and
> >>>> OPTEE_FFA_YIELDING_CALL_RETURN_INTERRUPT since underneath both are
> >>>> using FFA ABI.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jens,
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we change OP-TEE to use FFA_INTERRUPT as well when using FFA ABI?
> >>>
> >>> No, OP-TEE uses managed exit. Among other advantages, it allows
> >>> resuming execution on a different CPU.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I suppose that should be the case with FFA_INTERRUPT too. OP-TEE
> >> should be able to resume SPs on different CPUs as well, right?
> >
> > Possibly, but I leave that to Balint and company to sort out if that's
> > desired or not.
>
> FF-A mandates that S-EL0 SPs have a single execution context, run only
> on a single PE in the system at any point of time and are capable of
> migrating. Also, FF-A allows resuming a S-EL0 SP on a different CPU
> after it gets preempted by a NS interrupt. I think OP-TEE as S-EL1 SPMC
> does support this, but I don't have a setup yet that would explicitly
> test this scenario.
>

You can try to add a few minutes loop within a secure partition and
see if the Linux scheduler reschedules on a different CPUs. I suppose
you need to keep the system loaded with other normal world apps too.

> Managed exit is only available for S-EL1 SPs.
>

So does that mean OP-TEE can use FF-A constructs like (FFA_INTERRUPT)
for managed exit instead of custom
OPTEE_FFA_YIELDING_CALL_RETURN_INTERRUPT?

-Sumit