| Message ID | 20201105173539.1426301-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dt-bindings: dvfs: Add support for generic performance domains | expand |
On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 05:35:39PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > The CLKSCREW attack [0] exposed security vulnerabilities in energy management > implementations where untrusted software had direct access to clock and > voltage hardware controls. In this attack, the malicious software was able to > place the platform into unsafe overclocked or undervolted configurations. Such > configurations then enabled the injection of predictable faults to reveal > secrets. > > Many Arm-based systems used to or still use voltage regulator and clock > frameworks in the kernel. These frameworks allow callers to independently > manipulate frequency and voltage settings. Such implementations can render > systems susceptible to this form of attack. > > Attacks such as CLKSCREW are now being mitigated by not having direct and > independent control of clock and voltage in the kernel and moving that > control to a trusted entity, such as the SCP firmware or secure world > firmware/software which are to perform sanity checking on the requested > performance levels, thereby preventing any attempted malicious programming. > > With the advent of such an abstraction, there is a need to replace the > generic clock and regulator bindings used by such devices with a generic > performance domains bindings. > > [0] https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity17/technical-sessions/presentation/tang > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > --- > .../bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml | 67 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..fa0151f63ac9 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 Dual license new bindings. > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: Generic performance domains > + > +maintainers: > + - Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > + > +description: |+ > + This binding is intended for performance management of groups of devices or > + CPUs that run in the same performance domain. Performance domains must not > + be confused with power domains. A performance domain is defined by a set > + of devices that always have to run at the same performance level. For a given > + performance domain, there is a single point of control that affects all the > + devices in the domain, making it impossible to set the performance level of > + an individual device in the domain independently from other devices in > + that domain. For example, a set of CPUs that share a voltage domain, and > + have a common frequency control, is said to be in the same performance > + domain. > + > + This device tree binding can be used to bind performance domain consumer > + devices with their performance domains provided by performance domain > + providers. A performance domain provider can be represented by any node in > + the device tree and can provide one or more performance domains. A consumer > + node can refer to the provider by a phandle and a set of phandle arguments > + (so called performance domain specifiers) of length specified by the > + \#performance-domain-cells property in the performance domain provider node. select: true Otherwise, this schema is never used. > + > +properties: > + "#performance-domain-cells": > + description: > + Number of cells in a performance domain specifier. Typically 0 for nodes > + representing a single performance domain and 1 for nodes providing > + multiple performance domains (e.g. performance controllers), but can be > + any value as specified by device tree binding documentation of particular > + provider. enum: [ 0, 1 ] If we need more, it can be extended. > + > + performance-domains: Needs a type ref (phandle-array). > + description: > + A phandle and performance domain specifier as defined by bindings of the > + performance controller/provider specified by phandle. > + > +required: > + - "#performance-domain-cells" > + > +additionalProperties: true > + > +examples: > + - | > + performance: performance-controller@12340000 { > + compatible = "foo,performance-controller"; At some point in the future, this is going to generate warnings as an undocumented binding. So we'll have to remove it, add a schema for it, or replace with a real example. This is a standard DT design pattern, so I'd lean toward removing the example. Rob > + reg = <0x12340000 0x1000>; > + #performance-domain-cells = <1>; > + }; > + > + // The node above defines a performance controller that is a performance > + // domain provider and expects one cell as its phandle argument. > + > + device1: foo@56780000 { > + compatible = "foo,bar-controller"; > + reg = <0x56780000 0x1000>; > + performance-domains = <&performance 1>; > + }; > + > -- > 2.25.1 >
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 02:15:18PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 05:35:39PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > The CLKSCREW attack [0] exposed security vulnerabilities in energy management > > implementations where untrusted software had direct access to clock and > > voltage hardware controls. In this attack, the malicious software was able to > > place the platform into unsafe overclocked or undervolted configurations. Such > > configurations then enabled the injection of predictable faults to reveal > > secrets. > > > > Many Arm-based systems used to or still use voltage regulator and clock > > frameworks in the kernel. These frameworks allow callers to independently > > manipulate frequency and voltage settings. Such implementations can render > > systems susceptible to this form of attack. > > > > Attacks such as CLKSCREW are now being mitigated by not having direct and > > independent control of clock and voltage in the kernel and moving that > > control to a trusted entity, such as the SCP firmware or secure world > > firmware/software which are to perform sanity checking on the requested > > performance levels, thereby preventing any attempted malicious programming. > > > > With the advent of such an abstraction, there is a need to replace the > > generic clock and regulator bindings used by such devices with a generic > > performance domains bindings. > > > > [0] https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity17/technical-sessions/presentation/tang > > > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > --- > > .../bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml | 67 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..fa0151f63ac9 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > Dual license new bindings. > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: Generic performance domains > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > + > > +description: |+ > > + This binding is intended for performance management of groups of devices or > > + CPUs that run in the same performance domain. Performance domains must not > > + be confused with power domains. A performance domain is defined by a set > > + of devices that always have to run at the same performance level. For a given > > + performance domain, there is a single point of control that affects all the > > + devices in the domain, making it impossible to set the performance level of > > + an individual device in the domain independently from other devices in > > + that domain. For example, a set of CPUs that share a voltage domain, and > > + have a common frequency control, is said to be in the same performance > > + domain. > > + > > + This device tree binding can be used to bind performance domain consumer > > + devices with their performance domains provided by performance domain > > + providers. A performance domain provider can be represented by any node in > > + the device tree and can provide one or more performance domains. A consumer > > + node can refer to the provider by a phandle and a set of phandle arguments > > + (so called performance domain specifiers) of length specified by the > > + \#performance-domain-cells property in the performance domain provider node. > > select: true > > Otherwise, this schema is never used. > > > + > > +properties: > > + "#performance-domain-cells": > > + description: > > + Number of cells in a performance domain specifier. Typically 0 for nodes > > + representing a single performance domain and 1 for nodes providing > > + multiple performance domains (e.g. performance controllers), but can be > > + any value as specified by device tree binding documentation of particular > > + provider. > > enum: [ 0, 1 ] > > If we need more, it can be extended. > > > + > > + performance-domains: > > Needs a type ref (phandle-array). > > > + description: > > + A phandle and performance domain specifier as defined by bindings of the > > + performance controller/provider specified by phandle. > > + > > +required: > > + - "#performance-domain-cells" > > + > > +additionalProperties: true > > + > > +examples: > > + - | > > + performance: performance-controller@12340000 { > > + compatible = "foo,performance-controller"; > > At some point in the future, this is going to generate warnings as an > undocumented binding. So we'll have to remove it, add a schema for it, > or replace with a real example. This is a standard DT design pattern, so > I'd lean toward removing the example. > Thanks for the review, I have fixed all other things pointed out. I have retained the example in v2 with real compatibles as I believe it is good to have an example for the new binding. I am happy to drop it if it still looks wrong. -- Regards, Sudeep
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..fa0151f63ac9 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: Generic performance domains + +maintainers: + - Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> + +description: |+ + This binding is intended for performance management of groups of devices or + CPUs that run in the same performance domain. Performance domains must not + be confused with power domains. A performance domain is defined by a set + of devices that always have to run at the same performance level. For a given + performance domain, there is a single point of control that affects all the + devices in the domain, making it impossible to set the performance level of + an individual device in the domain independently from other devices in + that domain. For example, a set of CPUs that share a voltage domain, and + have a common frequency control, is said to be in the same performance + domain. + + This device tree binding can be used to bind performance domain consumer + devices with their performance domains provided by performance domain + providers. A performance domain provider can be represented by any node in + the device tree and can provide one or more performance domains. A consumer + node can refer to the provider by a phandle and a set of phandle arguments + (so called performance domain specifiers) of length specified by the + \#performance-domain-cells property in the performance domain provider node. + +properties: + "#performance-domain-cells": + description: + Number of cells in a performance domain specifier. Typically 0 for nodes + representing a single performance domain and 1 for nodes providing + multiple performance domains (e.g. performance controllers), but can be + any value as specified by device tree binding documentation of particular + provider. + + performance-domains: + description: + A phandle and performance domain specifier as defined by bindings of the + performance controller/provider specified by phandle. + +required: + - "#performance-domain-cells" + +additionalProperties: true + +examples: + - | + performance: performance-controller@12340000 { + compatible = "foo,performance-controller"; + reg = <0x12340000 0x1000>; + #performance-domain-cells = <1>; + }; + + // The node above defines a performance controller that is a performance + // domain provider and expects one cell as its phandle argument. + + device1: foo@56780000 { + compatible = "foo,bar-controller"; + reg = <0x56780000 0x1000>; + performance-domains = <&performance 1>; + }; +
The CLKSCREW attack [0] exposed security vulnerabilities in energy management implementations where untrusted software had direct access to clock and voltage hardware controls. In this attack, the malicious software was able to place the platform into unsafe overclocked or undervolted configurations. Such configurations then enabled the injection of predictable faults to reveal secrets. Many Arm-based systems used to or still use voltage regulator and clock frameworks in the kernel. These frameworks allow callers to independently manipulate frequency and voltage settings. Such implementations can render systems susceptible to this form of attack. Attacks such as CLKSCREW are now being mitigated by not having direct and independent control of clock and voltage in the kernel and moving that control to a trusted entity, such as the SCP firmware or secure world firmware/software which are to perform sanity checking on the requested performance levels, thereby preventing any attempted malicious programming. With the advent of such an abstraction, there is a need to replace the generic clock and regulator bindings used by such devices with a generic performance domains bindings. [0] https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity17/technical-sessions/presentation/tang Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> --- .../bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml | 67 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml -- 2.25.1