Tee-dev June 2017

tee-dev@lists.linaro.org

6 participants
3 discussions

Re: [Tee-dev] comment about "unregistered" vs "register" shared memory

by Jens Wiklander

+tee-dev On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander(a)linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Stuart, > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder(a)arm.com> wrote: >> >> +Volodymyr (correcting corrupted email address) >> >> >> On 6/9/17 11:51 AM, Stuart Yoder wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> I've been reviewing and trying out Volodymyr's patches related to dynamic >>> shared memory. >>> >>> One thing I found thoroughly confusing was that in the same capabilities list >>> we use the word "register" in two completely different ways. >>> >>> /* Secure world can communicate via previously unregistered shared memory */ >>> #define OPTEE_SMC_SEC_CAP_UNREGISTERED_SHM (1 << 1) >>> /* Secure world supporst commands "register/unregister shared memory" */ >>> #define OPTEE_SMC_SEC_CAP_REGISTER_SHM (1 << 2) >>> >>> As far as I can tell "unregistered shared memory" simply means >>> "dynamic shared memory" vs a pre-allocated static region. >>> >>> It would be much clearer if we tweaked the names: >>> >>> /* Secure world can communicate via previously unregistered shared memory */ >>> #define OPTEE_SMC_SEC_CAP_DYNAMIC_SHM (1 << 1) >>> /* Secure world supporst commands "register/unregister shared memory" */ >>> #define OPTEE_SMC_SEC_CAP_CMD_REGISTER_SHM (1 << 2) >>> >>> Are you open to that change? > > I agree, what you're proposing is more clear. It's not an ABI change, > only how it's documented. Since we already have > OPTEE_SMC_SEC_CAP_UNREGISTERED_SHM defined on the (optee_os) master > branch we do the change there via a pull request. > > If possible please create a pull request at github. > > Thanks, > Jens

7 years, 5 months

[PATCH] tee: add forward declaration for struct device

by Jerome Forissier

tee_drv.h references struct device, but does not include device.h nor platform_device.h. Therefore, if tee_drv.h is included by some file that does not pull device.h nor platform_device.h beforehand, we have a compile warning. Fix this by adding a forward declaration. Signed-off-by: Jerome Forissier <jerome.forissier(a)linaro.org> --- include/linux/tee_drv.h | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/include/linux/tee_drv.h b/include/linux/tee_drv.h index 8614713..07bd226 100644 --- a/include/linux/tee_drv.h +++ b/include/linux/tee_drv.h @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ #define TEE_SHM_DMA_BUF BIT(1) /* Memory with dma-buf handle */ #define TEE_SHM_EXT_DMA_BUF BIT(2) /* Memory with dma-buf handle */ +struct device; struct tee_device; struct tee_shm; struct tee_shm_pool; -- 2.7.4

7 years, 5 months

comment about "unregistered" vs "register" shared memory

by Stuart Yoder

All, I've been reviewing and trying out Volodymyr's patches related to dynamic shared memory. One thing I found thoroughly confusing was that in the same capabilities list we use the word "register" in two completely different ways. /* Secure world can communicate via previously unregistered shared memory */ #define OPTEE_SMC_SEC_CAP_UNREGISTERED_SHM (1 << 1) /* Secure world supporst commands "register/unregister shared memory" */ #define OPTEE_SMC_SEC_CAP_REGISTER_SHM (1 << 2) As far as I can tell "unregistered shared memory" simply means "dynamic shared memory" vs a pre-allocated static region. It would be much clearer if we tweaked the names: /* Secure world can communicate via previously unregistered shared memory */ #define OPTEE_SMC_SEC_CAP_DYNAMIC_SHM (1 << 1) /* Secure world supporst commands "register/unregister shared memory" */ #define OPTEE_SMC_SEC_CAP_CMD_REGISTER_SHM (1 << 2) Are you open to that change? Thanks, Stuart

7 years, 5 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Tee-dev June 2017