| Message ID | 20240812133127.865879-1-jens.wiklander@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem | expand |
On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c > @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 Fine, but: > --- /dev/null > +++ b/include/linux/rpmb.h > @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0 */ Really? Why? I need lots of documentation and a lawyer sign off for why this is a dual license for a file that is obviously only for internal Linux kernel stuff. thanks, greg k-h
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:29 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > Fine, but: > > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/include/linux/rpmb.h > > @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0 */ > > Really? > > Why? I need lots of documentation and a lawyer sign off for why this is > a dual license for a file that is obviously only for internal Linux > kernel stuff. I'm sorry that was added via one of the patch sets before mine. I'll revert to GPL-2.0 only. Thanks, Jens > > thanks, > > greg k-h
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 01:26:18PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:29 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c > > > @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > Fine, but: > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/include/linux/rpmb.h > > > @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0 */ > > > > Really? > > > > Why? I need lots of documentation and a lawyer sign off for why this is > > a dual license for a file that is obviously only for internal Linux > > kernel stuff. > > I'm sorry that was added via one of the patch sets before mine. I'll > revert to GPL-2.0 only. Please be sure to get proper legal approval to change the license of code not written by you :)
Hi Jens, On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 at 19:01, Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org> wrote: > > Add tee_device_set_dev_groups() to TEE drivers to supply driver specific > attribute groups. The class specific attributes are from now on added > via the tee_class, which currently only consist of implementation_id. > > Signed-off-by: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c | 155 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------- These changes don't seem to belong to this patch but rather patch #1. > drivers/tee/tee_core.c | 19 +++-- > include/linux/rpmb.h | 53 +++++-------- Ditto here. -Sumit
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 01:26:18PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:29 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > > > Fine, but: > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/include/linux/rpmb.h > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0 */ > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > Why? I need lots of documentation and a lawyer sign off for why > > > this is a dual license for a file that is obviously only for > > > internal Linux kernel stuff. This was legal approved. The project was used in https://projectacrn.org/ which is under BSD. > > > > I'm sorry that was added via one of the patch sets before mine. I'll > > revert to GPL-2.0 only. > > Please be sure to get proper legal approval to change the license of code not > written by you :)
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 1:36 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 01:26:18PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:29 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > > > Fine, but: > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/include/linux/rpmb.h > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0 */ > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > Why? I need lots of documentation and a lawyer sign off for why this is > > > a dual license for a file that is obviously only for internal Linux > > > kernel stuff. > > > > I'm sorry that was added via one of the patch sets before mine. I'll > > revert to GPL-2.0 only. > > Please be sure to get proper legal approval to change the license of > code not written by you :) The dual license was introduced in https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220405093759.1126835-2-alex.bennee@linaro.org/, but https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mmc/1478548394-8184-2-git-send-email-tomas.winkler@intel.com/ uses GPL-2.0 only. So reverting to GPL-2.0 only should be OK, don't you agree? Thanks, Jens
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 12:04:03PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 01:26:18PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:29 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ > > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > > > > > Fine, but: > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/rpmb.h > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ > > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0 */ > > > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > > > Why? I need lots of documentation and a lawyer sign off for why > > > > this is a dual license for a file that is obviously only for > > > > internal Linux kernel stuff. > > This was legal approved. This internal Linux kernel header file for an internal-only Linux kernel api? Wonderful, please get the Intel lawyer who agreed with that to sign off on the commit next time around explaining why it needs to be this way. thanks, greg k-h
Hi Sumit, On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 1:40 PM Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Jens, > > On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 at 19:01, Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Add tee_device_set_dev_groups() to TEE drivers to supply driver specific > > attribute groups. The class specific attributes are from now on added > > via the tee_class, which currently only consist of implementation_id. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c | 155 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > > These changes don't seem to belong to this patch but rather patch #1. > > > drivers/tee/tee_core.c | 19 +++-- > > > include/linux/rpmb.h | 53 +++++-------- > > Ditto here. Ouch, thanks for noticing this. I'll fix it in the next version. Cheers, Jens
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 12:04:03PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 01:26:18PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:29 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ > > > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > > > > > > > Fine, but: > > > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/rpmb.h > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ > > > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0 */ > > > > > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > > > > > Why? I need lots of documentation and a lawyer sign off for why > > > > > this is a dual license for a file that is obviously only for > > > > > internal Linux kernel stuff. > > > > This was legal approved. > > This internal Linux kernel header file for an internal-only Linux kernel api? > Wonderful, please get the Intel lawyer who agreed with that to sign off on > the commit next time around explaining why it needs to be this way. > This was few years ago, and there was few versions of this patchest, but it looks like Jens is right, as he wrote in another email my final submission was with GPL-2.0 only. Thanks Tomas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 3:13 PM > To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org; op- > tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org; Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>; > Shyam Saini <shyamsaini@linux.microsoft.com>; Linus Walleij > <linus.walleij@linaro.org>; Jerome Forissier <jerome.forissier@linaro.org>; > Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>; Ilias Apalodimas > <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>; Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>; > Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>; Ard Biesheuvel > <ardb@kernel.org>; Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>; Manuel Traut > <manut@mecka.net>; Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@linaro.org>; Winkler, > Tomas <tomas.winkler@intel.com>; Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block > (RPMB) subsystem > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 1:36 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 01:26:18PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:29 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ > > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > > > > > Fine, but: > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/rpmb.h > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ > > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0 */ > > > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > > > Why? I need lots of documentation and a lawyer sign off for why > > > > this is a dual license for a file that is obviously only for > > > > internal Linux kernel stuff. > > > > > > I'm sorry that was added via one of the patch sets before mine. I'll > > > revert to GPL-2.0 only. > > > > Please be sure to get proper legal approval to change the license of > > code not written by you :) > > The dual license was introduced in > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220405093759.1126835-2- > alex.bennee@linaro.org/, > but https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mmc/1478548394-8184-2-git-send-email- > tomas.winkler@intel.com/ > uses GPL-2.0 only. So reverting to GPL-2.0 only should be OK, don't you > agree? Ack.
Hi, This patch set is getting ready to be queued for the next merge window. The issues reported by Mikka in the previous patch set has been resolved, the issues turned out to be outside of this patch set relating to configuration in the secure world. I'm planning a pull request to arm-soc, but before that I'd rather have acks or at least an OK for: - "rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem" by Greg - "mmc: block: register RPMB partition with the RPMB subsystem" by Ulf Arnd, please let me know if anything else is missing. This patch set introduces a new RPMB subsystem, based on patches from [1], [2], and [3]. The RPMB subsystem aims at providing access to RPMB partitions to other kernel drivers, in particular the OP-TEE driver. A new user space ABI isn't needed, we can instead continue using the already present ABI when writing the RPMB key during production. I've added and removed things to keep only what is needed by the OP-TEE driver. Since the posting of [3], there has been major changes in the MMC subsystem so "mmc: block: register RPMB partition with the RPMB subsystem" is in practice completely rewritten. With this OP-TEE can access RPMB during early boot instead of having to wait for user space to become available as in the current design [4]. This will benefit the efi variables [5] since we won't rely on userspace as well as some TPM issues [6] that were solved. The OP-TEE driver finds the correct RPMB device to interact with by iterating over available devices until one is found with a programmed authentication matching the one OP-TEE is using. This enables coexisting users of other RPMBs since the owner can be determined by who knows the authentication key. The corresponding secure world OP-TEE patches are available at [7]. I've put myself as a maintainer for the RPMB subsystem as I have an interest in the OP-TEE driver to keep this in good shape. However, if you'd rather see someone else taking the maintainership that's fine too. I'll help keep the subsystem updated regardless. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230722014037.42647-1-shyamsaini@linux.microsoft.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220405093759.1126835-2-alex.bennee@linaro.org/ [3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mmc/1478548394-8184-2-git-send-email-tomas.winkler@intel.com/ [4] https://optee.readthedocs.io/en/latest/architecture/secure_storage.html#rpmb-secure-storage [5] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c44b6be62e8dd4ee0a308c36a70620613e6fc55f [6] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=7269cba53d906cf257c139d3b3a53ad272176bca [7] https://github.com/jenswi-linaro/optee_os/tree/rpmb_probe_v8 Thanks, Jens Changes since v7: * Rebased on v6.11-rc1 * "mmc: block: register RPMB partition with the RPMB subsystem" - Adding Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> * "tee: add tee_device_set_dev_groups()" - Declaring tee_device_set_dev_groups() in the recently introduced include/linux/tee_core.h Changes since v6: * Add Tested-by: Manuel Traut <manut@mecka.net> provided for the v6 * Add a new patch "tee: add tee_device_set_dev_groups()" needed later in the patch set * Reintroduce the rpmb_class as requested by Greg, this affects the patches "rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem" and "optee: probe RPMB device using RPMB subsystem" * "rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem": - rpmb_interface_{,un}register() are now based on class_interface_{,un}register() - Embed a separate device in struct rpmb_dev for life cycle management etc * "optee: probe RPMB device using RPMB subsystem" - Add an internal blocking_notifier to deal with the struct class_interface callback - Add a rpmb_routing_model variable in sysfs to help integration with systemd, requested by Mikko Rapeli - Add an RPMB probe capability flag in the ABI shared with the secure world, both SMC and FF-A ABI, needed to support the rpmb_routing_model variable - optee_rpc_cmd() is strict whether an RPMB RPC request should be forwarded to tee-supplicant or routed via the RPMB subsystem, depending on the reported RPMB routing model Changes since v5: Manuel Traut reported and investigated an error on an i.MX8MM, the root cause was identified as insufficient alignment on frames sent to the RPMB device. Fixed in the OP-TEE driver as described below. * "rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem" - Adding a missing EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() * "optee: probe RPMB device using RPMB subsystem" - Replacing the old OPTEE_RPC_CMD_RPMB ABI with OPTEE_RPC_CMD_RPMB_FRAMES to get rid of the small header struct rpmb_req (now removed) causing the problem. - Matching changes on the secure side + support for re-initializing RPMB in case a boot stage has used RPMB, the latter also reported by Manuel Traut. Changes since v4: * "rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem" - Describing struct rpmb_descr as RPMB description instead of descriptor * "mmc: block: register RPMB partition with the RPMB subsystem" - Addressing review comments - Adding more comments for struct rpmb_frame - Fixing assignment of reliable_wr_count and capacity in mmc_blk_rpmb_add() * "optee: probe RPMB device using RPMB subsystem" - Updating struct rpmb_dev_info to match changes in "rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem" Changes since v3: * Move struct rpmb_frame into the MMC driver since the format of the RPMB frames depend on the implementation, one format for eMMC, another for UFS, and so on * "rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem" - Adding Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - Adding more description of the API functions - Removing the set_dev_info() op from struct rpmb_ops, the needed information is supplied in the arguments to rpmb_dev_register() instead. - Getting rid of struct rpmb_ops since only the route_frames() op was remaining, store that op directly in struct rpmb_dev - Changed rpmb_interface_register() and rpmb_interface_unregister() to use notifier_block instead of implementing the same thing ourselves * "mmc: block: register RPMB partition with the RPMB subsystem" - Moving the call to rpmb_dev_register() to be done at the end of mmc_blk_probe() when the device is fully available * "optee: probe RPMB device using RPMB subsystem" - Use IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RPMB) to determine if the RPMB subsystem is available - Translate TEE_ERROR_STORAGE_NOT_AVAILABLE if encountered in get_devices() to recognize the error in optee_rpmb_scan() - Simplified optee_rpmb_scan() and optee_rpmb_intf_rdev() Changes since v2: * "rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem" - Fixing documentation issues - Adding a "depends on MMC" in the Kconfig - Removed the class-device and the embedded device, struct rpmb_dev now relies on the parent device for reference counting as requested - Removed the now unneeded rpmb_ops get_resources() and put_resources() since references are already taken in mmc_blk_alloc_rpmb_part() before rpmb_dev_register() is called - Added rpmb_interface_{,un}register() now that class_interface_{,un}register() can't be used ay longer * "mmc: block: register RPMB partition with the RPMB subsystem" - Adding the missing error cleanup in alloc_idata() - Taking the needed reference to md->disk in mmc_blk_alloc_rpmb_part() instead of in mmc_rpmb_chrdev_open() and rpmb_op_mmc_get_resources() * "optee: probe RPMB device using RPMB subsystem" - Registering to get a notification when an RPMB device comes online - Probes for RPMB devices each time an RPMB device comes online, until a usable device is found - When a usable RPMB device is found, call optee_enumerate_devices(PTA_CMD_GET_DEVICES_RPMB) - Pass type of rpmb in return value from OPTEE_RPC_CMD_RPMB_PROBE_NEXT Changes since Shyam's RFC: * Removed the remaining leftover rpmb_cdev_*() function calls * Refactored the struct rpmb_ops with all the previous ops replaced, in some sense closer to [3] with the route_frames() op * Added rpmb_route_frames() * Added struct rpmb_frame, enum rpmb_op_result, and enum rpmb_type from [3] * Removed all functions not needed in the OP-TEE use case * Added "mmc: block: register RPMB partition with the RPMB subsystem", based on the commit with the same name in [3] * Added "optee: probe RPMB device using RPMB subsystem" for integration with OP-TEE * Moved the RPMB driver into drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c * Added my name to MODULE_AUTHOR() in rpmb-core.c * Added an rpmb_mutex to serialize access to the IDA * Removed the target parameter from all rpmb_*() functions since it's currently unused Jens Wiklander (4): rpmb: add Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) subsystem mmc: block: register RPMB partition with the RPMB subsystem tee: add tee_device_set_dev_groups() optee: probe RPMB device using RPMB subsystem Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-tee | 15 ++ MAINTAINERS | 8 + drivers/misc/Kconfig | 10 + drivers/misc/Makefile | 1 + drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c | 232 +++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/mmc/core/block.c | 241 +++++++++++++++++++++- drivers/tee/optee/core.c | 96 ++++++++- drivers/tee/optee/device.c | 7 + drivers/tee/optee/ffa_abi.c | 14 ++ drivers/tee/optee/optee_ffa.h | 2 + drivers/tee/optee/optee_private.h | 26 ++- drivers/tee/optee/optee_rpc_cmd.h | 35 ++++ drivers/tee/optee/optee_smc.h | 2 + drivers/tee/optee/rpc.c | 177 ++++++++++++++++ drivers/tee/optee/smc_abi.c | 14 ++ drivers/tee/tee_core.c | 19 +- include/linux/rpmb.h | 123 +++++++++++ include/linux/tee_core.h | 12 ++ 18 files changed, 1024 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-tee create mode 100644 drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c create mode 100644 include/linux/rpmb.h