Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Introduce bus firewall controller framework

[Benjamin GAIGNARD]

On 1/28/20 6:17 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:46:41PM +0000, Benjamin GAIGNARD wrote:
>> On 1/28/20 5:36 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:37:59PM +0100, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>>>> Bus firewall framework aims to provide a kernel API to set the configuration
>>>> of the harware blocks in charge of busses access control.
>>>>
>>>> Framework architecture is inspirated by pinctrl framework:
>>>> - a default configuration could be applied before bind the driver.
>>>>     If a configuration could not be applied the driver is not bind
>>>>     to avoid doing accesses on prohibited regions.
>>>> - configurations could be apllied dynamically by drivers.
>>>> - device node provides the bus firewall configurations.
>>>>
>>>> An example of bus firewall controller is STM32 ETZPC hardware block
>>>> which got 3 possible configurations:
>>>> - trust: hardware blocks are only accessible by software running on trust
>>>>     zone (i.e op-tee firmware).
>>>> - non-secure: hardware blocks are accessible by non-secure software (i.e.
>>>>     linux kernel).
>>>> - coprocessor: hardware blocks are only accessible by the coprocessor.
>>>> Up to 94 hardware blocks of the soc could be managed by ETZPC.
>>>>
>>> /me confused. Is ETZPC accessible from the non-secure kernel space to
>>> begin with ? If so, is it allowed to configure hardware blocks as secure
>>> or trusted ? I am failing to understand the overall design of a system
>>> with ETZPC controller.
>> Non-secure kernel could read the values set in ETZPC, if it doesn't match
>> with what is required by the device node the driver won't be probed.
>>
> OK, but I was under the impression that it was made clear that Linux is
> not firmware validation suite. The firmware need to ensure all the devices
> that are not accessible in the Linux kernel are marked as disabled and
> this needs to happen before entering the kernel. So if this is what this
> patch series achieves, then there is no need for it. Please stop pursuing
> this any further or provide any other reasons(if any) to have it. Until
> you have other reasons, NACK for this series.

No it doesn't disable the nodes.

When the firmware disable a node before the kernel that means it change

the DTB and that is a problem when you want to sign it. With my proposal

the DTB remains the same.

>
> Note you haven't cc-ed 2 people who has comments earlier[1][2]
I will cc them, thanks
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/27/512
> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/27/598