Hi Christian,
Le jeudi 27 juin 2024 à 08:57 +0200, Christian König a écrit :
Am 27.06.24 um 05:21 schrieb Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥):
On Wed, 2024-06-26 at 19:56 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until you have verified the sender or the content. On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:49:02PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 26.06.24 um 10:05 schrieb Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥):
> I think I have the same problem as the ECC_FLAG mention in: > > >
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/20240515-dma-buf-ecc-heap-v1-0-54cbbd049...
> > > I think it would be better to have the user configurable
private
> information in dma-buf, so all the drivers who have the same > requirement can get their private information from dma-buf
directly
> and > no need to change or add the interface. > > > What's your opinion in this point? > Well of hand I don't see the need for that. > What happens if you get a non-secure buffer imported in your
secure
device?
We use the same mediatek-drm driver for secure and non-secure
buffer.
If non-secure buffer imported to mediatek-drm driver, it's go to
the
normal flow with normal hardware settings.
We use different configurations to make hardware have different permission to access the buffer it should access.
So if we can't get the information of "the buffer is allocated
from
restricted_mtk_cma" when importing the buffer into the driver, we
won't
be able to configure the hardware correctly.
Why can't you get this information from userspace?
Same reason amd and i915/xe also pass this around internally in the kernel, it's just that for those gpus the render and kms node are the same driver so this is easy.
The reason I ask is that encryption here looks just like another parameter for the buffer, e.g. like format, stride, tilling etc..
I'm mostly a reader of the thread here, but I'd like to avoid basic mistakes. The buffer in question are "protected", meaning that the CPU HW does not have access to the underlying pages (or zone in the case of Meditatek).
This is different from encrypted buffers, which don't need this level of protection, as without the security key to decrypt them, their content is close to random data.
So instead of this during buffer import:
mtk_gem->secure = (!strncmp(attach->dmabuf->exp_name, "restricted", 10)); mtk_gem->dma_addr = sg_dma_address(sg->sgl); mtk_gem->size = attach->dmabuf->size; mtk_gem->sg = sg;
You can trivially say during use hey this buffer is encrypted.
At least that's my 10 mile high view, maybe I'm missing some extensive key exchange or something like that.
If we take secure video path as an example, in the context of digital right management, the handling of user session, retrieval of the device specific "key" is entirely something for userspace to handle and the kernel have no business into that. As long as the data is encrypted, its safe to carry around like any other buffers.
It is only once decryption (usally done by a TF-A) that restricted memory start being used. Initially in the form of a compressed video stream, and eventually in the format of raw images.
But on arm you have split designs everywhere and dma-buf import/export, so something else is needed. And neither current kms uapi nor protocols/extensions have provisions for this (afaik) because it works on the big gpus, and on android it's just hacked up with backchannels.
So yeah essentially I think we probably need something like this, as much as it sucks. I see it somewhat similar to handling pcip2pdma limitations in the kernel too.
Not sure where/how it should be handled though, and maybe I've missed something around protocols, in which case I guess we should add some secure buffer flags to the ADDFB2 ioctl.
Thanks for your hint, I'll try to add the secure flag to the ADDFB2 ioctl. If it works, I'll send the patch.
Yeah, exactly what I would suggest as well.
I'm not an expert for that part, but as far as I know we already have bunch of device specific tilling flags in there.
Adding an MTK_ENCRYPTED flag should be trivial.
Just to be clear, my comment was just a concept correction, I also think its nice to give a ADDFB2 flag a try, from my userspace experience, this is an easy place to provide this type of information. Also, the V4L2 proposal for the same endup with a flag at during buffer queue configuration, which is pretty close.
Nicolas
Regards, Christian.
Regards, Jason-JH.Lin
-Sima
************* MEDIATEK Confidentiality Notice ******************** The information contained in this e-mail message (including any attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, dissemination, distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this e-mail (including its attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do not disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!