On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 3:00 PM Jerome Forissier jerome.forissier@linaro.org wrote:
On 5/27/24 14:13, Jens Wiklander wrote:
Adds support in the OP-TEE drivers (both SMC and FF-A ABIs) to probe and use an RPMB device via the RPMB subsystem instead of passing the RPMB frames via tee-supplicant in user space. A fallback mechanism is kept to route RPMB frames via tee-supplicant if the RPMB subsystem isn't available.
The OP-TEE RPC ABI is extended to support iterating over all RPMB devices until one is found with the expected RPMB key already programmed.
Signed-off-by: Jens Wiklander jens.wiklander@linaro.org Tested-by: Manuel Traut manut@mecka.net
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-tee | 15 ++ MAINTAINERS | 1 + 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 ++ 11 files changed, 387 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-tee
diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-tee b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-tee new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..c9144d16003e --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-tee @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +What: /sys/class/tee/tee{,priv}X/rpmb_routing_model
Wouldn't /sys/class/tee/teeX/rpmb_routing_model be good enough?
Doesn't the routing model concern tee-supplicant more than a TEE client? Then it might make more sense to have /sys/class/tee/teeprivX/rpmb_routing_model only. Keeping it for both devices representing the same internal struct optee makes it easier to find. Anyway, I don't mind removing one. Mikko, what do you prefer?
Cheers, Jens