Re: [Tee-dev] OP-TEE OS: Param Mapping in TA

-- Jerome > > Will submit a pull request, once I have a working version. > > -Aravind > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jens Wiklander jens.wiklander@linaro.org > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:45 PM > *To:* machiry aravind > *Cc:* tee-dev@lists.linaro.org; Eric Gustafson > *Subject:* Re: [Tee-dev] OP-TEE OS: Param Mapping in TA > > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:51 PM, machiry aravind > machiry_msidc@hotmail.com wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > Is there any reason, why we expect all the memref param physical address > to > > be in MEM_AREA_NSEC_SHM? > > Current design is that OP-TEE tells normal world which memory to use > as shared memory, it doesn't make sense for OP-TEE to accept pointers > to memory out side that range. > > > > > > > More specifically, why is it hard to map arbitrary non-secure user-space > > pages into TA? > > If you want to map them, you need to make sure that they aren't > unmapped (or more specifically reused for something else) while used > in secure world. > > > > > > > MEM_AREA_NSEC_SHM restriction imposes unnecessary limit on TA. > > > > If I want to implement some integrity checking mechanism on large > sections > > of memory, this restriction makes it almost impossible. > > Yes, but the purpose of this memory is to be used as shared memory for > communication between secure and non-secure world. You're looking for > something much more complex. > > Long term I think we'd like to be able to map arbitrary non-secure > memory as parameters for TAs, both to make some use cases more > efficient but also to make MEM_AREA_NSEC_SHM optional in some > configuration. I'm not aware of any concrete plans though. > > Regards, > Jens > > _______________________________________________ > Tee-dev mailing list > Tee-dev@lists.linaro.org > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/tee-dev > >