Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] TEE subsystem for restricted dma-buf allocations

[Nicolas Dufresne]

Le mardi 04 mars 2025 à 13:15 +0530, Sumit Garg a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 08:17:23AM +0100, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 3:12 PM Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi Sumit,
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 at 11:24, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 21:52, Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > dma-heaps was created to solve the problem of having too many
> > > > > 'allocate $n bytes from $specialplace' uAPIs. The proliferation was
> > > > > painful and making it difficult for userspace to do what it needed to
> > > > > do. Userspace doesn't _yet_ make full use of it, but the solution is
> > > > > to make userspace make full use of it, not to go create entirely
> > > > > separate allocation paths for unclear reasons.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Besides, I'm writing this from a platform that implements SVP not via
> > > > > TEE. I've worked on platforms which implement SVP without any TEE,
> > > > > where the TEE implementation would be at best a no-op stub, and at
> > > > > worst flat-out impossible.
> > > > 
> > > > Can you elaborate the non-TEE use-case for Secure Video Path (SVP) a
> > > > bit more? As to how the protected/encrypted media content pipeline
> > > > works? Which architecture support does your use-case require? Is there
> > > > any higher privileged level firmware interaction required to perform
> > > > media content decryption into restricted memory? Do you plan to
> > > > upstream corresponding support in near future?
> > > 
> > > You can see the MTK SVP patches on list which use the MTK SMC to mediate it.
> > > 
> > > There are TI Jacinto platforms which implement a 'secure' area
> > > configured statically by (IIRC) BL2, with static permissions defined
> > > for each AXI endpoint, e.g. CPU write + codec RW + dispc read. I've
> > > heard of another SoC vendor doing the same, but I don't think I can
> > > share those details. There is no TEE interaction.
> > > 
> > > I'm writing this message from an AMD laptop which implements
> > > restricted content paths outside of TEE. I don't have the full picture
> > > of how SVP is implemented on AMD systems, but I do know that I don't
> > > have any TEE devices exposed.
> > > 
> > > > Let me try to elaborate on the Secure Video Path (SVP) flow requiring
> > > > a TEE implementation (in general terms a higher privileged firmware
> > > > managing the pipeline as the kernel/user-space has no access
> > > > permissions to the plain text media content):
> > > > 
> > > > - [...]
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I totally understand the TEE usecase. I think that TEE is a good
> > > design to implement this. I think that TEE should be used for SVP
> > > where it makes sense.
> > > 
> > > Please understand that I am _not_ arguing that no-one should use TEE for SVP!
> > > 
> > > > > So, again, let's
> > > > > please turn this around: _why_ TEE? Who benefits from exposing this as
> > > > > completely separate to the more generic uAPI that we specifically
> > > > > designed to handle things like this?
> > > > 
> > > > The bridging between DMA heaps and TEE would still require user-space
> > > > to perform an IOCTL into TEE to register the DMA-bufs as you can see
> > > > here [1]. Then it will rather be two handles for user-space to manage.
> > > 
> > > Yes, the decoder would need to do this. That's common though: if you
> > > want to share a buffer between V4L2 and DRM, you have three handles:
> > > the V4L2 buffer handle, the DRM GEM handle, and the dmabuf you use to
> > > bridge the two.
> > > 
> > > > Similarly during restricted memory allocation/free we need another
> > > > glue layer under DMA heaps to TEE subsystem.
> > > 
> > > Yep.
> > > 
> > > > The reason is simply which has been iterated over many times in the
> > > > past threads that:
> > > > 
> > > >     "If user-space has to interact with a TEE device for SVP use-case
> > > > then why it's not better to ask TEE to allocate restricted DMA-bufs
> > > > too"
> > > 
> > > The first word in your proposition is load-bearing.
> > > 
> > > Build out the usecase a little more here. You have a DRMed video
> > > stream coming in, which you need to decode (involving TEE for this
> > > usecase). You get a dmabuf handle to the decoded frame. You need to
> > > pass the dmabuf across to the Wayland compositor. The compositor needs
> > > to pass it to EGL/Vulkan to import and do composition, which in turn
> > > passes it to the GPU DRM driver. The output of the composition is in
> > > turn shared between the GPU DRM driver and the separate KMS DRM
> > > driver, with the involvement of GBM.
> > > 
> > > For the platforms I'm interested in, the GPU DRM driver needs to
> > > switch into protected mode, which has no involvement at all with TEE -
> > > it's architecturally impossible to have TEE involved without moving
> > > most of the GPU driver into TEE and destroying performance. The
> > > display hardware also needs to engage protected mode, which again has
> > > no involvement with TEE and again would need to have half the driver
> > > moved into TEE for no benefit in order to do so. The Wayland
> > > compositor also has no interest in TEE: it tells the GPU DRM driver
> > > about the protected status of its buffers, and that's it.
> > > 
> > > What these components _are_ opinionated about, is the way buffers are
> > > allocated and managed. We built out dmabuf modifiers for this usecase,
> > > and we have a good negotiation protocol around that. We also really
> > > care about buffer placement in some usecases - e.g. some display/codec
> > > hardware requires buffers to be sourced from contiguous memory, other
> > > hardware needs to know that when it shares buffers with another
> > > device, it needs to place the buffers outside of inaccessible/slow
> > > local RAM. So we built out dma-heaps, so every part of the component
> > > in the stack can communicate their buffer-placement needs in the same
> > > way as we do modifiers, and negotiate an acceptable allocation.
> > > 
> > > That's my starting point for this discussion. We have a mechanism to
> > > deal with the fact that buffers need to be shared between different IP
> > > blocks which have their own constraints on buffer placement, avoiding
> > > the current problem of having every subsystem reinvent their own
> > > allocation uAPI which was burying us in impedance mismatch and
> > > confusion. That mechanism is dma-heaps. It seems like your starting
> > > point from this discussion is that you've implemented a TEE-centric
> > > design for SVP, and so all of userspace should bypass our existing
> > > cross-subsystem special-purpose allocation mechanism, and write
> > > specifically to one implementation. I believe that is a massive step
> > > backwards and an immediate introduction of technical debt.
> > > 
> > > Again, having an implementation of SVP via TEE makes a huge amount of
> > > sense. Having _most_ SVP implementations via TEE still makes a lot of
> > > sense. Having _all_ SVP implementations eventually be via TEE would
> > > still make sense. But even if we were at that point - which we aren't
> > > - it still doesn't justify telling userspace 'use the generic dma-heap
> > > uAPI for every device-specific allocation constraint, apart from SVP
> > > which has a completely different way to allocate some bytes'.
> > 
> > I must admit that I don't see how this makes a significant difference,
> > but then I haven't hacked much in the stacks you're talking about, so
> > I'm going to take your word for it.
> > 
> > I've experimented with providing a dma-heap replacing the TEE API. The
> > implementation is more complex than I first anticipated, adding about
> > 400 lines to the patch set.
> 
> I did anticipated this but let's give it a try and see if DMA heaps
> really adds any value from user-space point of view. If it does then it
> will be worth the maintenence overhead.
> 
> > From user space, it looks like another
> > dma-heap. I'm using the names you gave earlier,
> > protected,secure-video, protected,trusted-ui, and
> > protected,secure-video-record. However, I wonder if we shouldn't use
> > "restricted" instead of "protected" since we had agreed to call it
> > restricted memory earlier.
> 
> Let's stick with "restricted" memory buffer references only.

Until now, we didn't have a standard to balance our naming choice, we
simply wanted to move away from "secure" which didn't mean much, and
restricted met our needs. I think the discussion is worth having again,
now that there is a standard that decided toward "protected". Matchcing
the Khronos standard means reducing a lot of confusion.

https://docs.vulkan.org/guide/latest/protected.html

regards,
Nicolas