| Message ID | 20210407135913.2067694-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v3] dt-bindings: dvfs: Add support for generic performance domains | expand |
On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:59:13 +0100, 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 > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201116181356.804590-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > --- > > Hi All, > > Sorry for the delay, I thought I had sent this out last week and it turns > out that I had dry-run in my git email command and never removed it. Just > noticed now looking for response for this patch on the list to find out > that I never sent it out :(. > > v2[2]->v3: > - Dropped required properties > - Added non cpu device example > - Updated cpu bindings too > > v1[1]->v2[2]: > - Changed to Dual License > - Added select: true, enum for #performance-domain-cells and > $ref for performance-domain > - Changed the example to use real existing compatibles instead > of made-up ones > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201105173539.1426301-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201116181356.804590-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com > > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml | 7 ++ > .../bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml | 80 +++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 87 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml > My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check' on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13): yamllint warnings/errors: dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.example.dt.yaml:0:0: /example-0/performance-controller@12340000: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['qcom,cpufreq-hw'] /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.example.dt.yaml: gpu@2d000000: compatible: 'oneOf' conditional failed, one must be fixed: ['arm,mali-t624'] is too short 'arm,mali-t624' is not one of ['samsung,exynos5250-mali'] 'arm,mali-t624' is not one of ['samsung,exynos5420-mali'] 'arm,mali-t624' is not one of ['allwinner,sun50i-h6-mali'] 'arm,mali-t624' is not one of ['amlogic,meson-gxm-mali', 'realtek,rtd1295-mali'] 'arm,mali-t624' is not one of ['arm,juno-mali'] 'arm,mali-t624' is not one of ['rockchip,rk3288-mali', 'samsung,exynos5433-mali'] 'arm,mali-t624' is not one of ['rockchip,rk3399-mali'] From schema: /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-midgard.yaml /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.example.dt.yaml: gpu@2d000000: 'interrupt-names' is a required property From schema: /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-midgard.yaml /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.example.dt.yaml: gpu@2d000000: 'clocks' is a required property From schema: /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-midgard.yaml /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.example.dt.yaml: gpu@2d000000: 'performance-domains' does not match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+' From schema: /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-midgard.yaml /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.example.dt.yaml: gpu@2d000000: 'oneOf' conditional failed, one must be fixed: 'interrupts' is a required property 'interrupts-extended' is a required property From schema: /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-midgard.yaml See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1463354 This check can fail if there are any dependencies. The base for a patch series is generally the most recent rc1. If you already ran 'make dt_binding_check' and didn't see the above error(s), then make sure 'yamllint' is installed and dt-schema is up to date: pip3 install dtschema --upgrade Please check and re-submit.
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:59:13PM +0100, 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 > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201116181356.804590-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > --- > > Hi All, > > Sorry for the delay, I thought I had sent this out last week and it turns > out that I had dry-run in my git email command and never removed it. Just > noticed now looking for response for this patch on the list to find out > that I never sent it out :(. > > v2[2]->v3: > - Dropped required properties > - Added non cpu device example > - Updated cpu bindings too > > v1[1]->v2[2]: > - Changed to Dual License > - Added select: true, enum for #performance-domain-cells and > $ref for performance-domain > - Changed the example to use real existing compatibles instead > of made-up ones > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201105173539.1426301-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201116181356.804590-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com > > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml | 7 ++ > .../bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml | 80 +++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 87 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml > index 26b886b20b27..98590a2982d0 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml > @@ -255,6 +255,13 @@ description: |+ > > where voltage is in V, frequency is in MHz. > > + performance-domains: > + $ref: '/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array' Can drop as it already has a type def. Does more than 1 entry make sense for a CPU? If not, 'maxItems: 1'. It can always be extended later if the need arises. > + description: > + List of phandles and performance domain specifiers, as defined by > + bindings of the performance domain provider. See also > + dvfs/performance-domain.yaml. > + > power-domains: > $ref: '/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array' > description: > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..640e676ed228 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$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 > + > +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 ] > + > + performance-domains: > + $ref: '/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array' > + description: > + A phandle and performance domain specifier as defined by bindings of the > + performance controller/provider specified by phandle. This implies there is only 1. > + > +additionalProperties: true > + > +examples: > + - | > + performance: performance-controller@12340000 { > + compatible = "qcom,cpufreq-hw"; > + 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. > + gpu@2d000000 { > + compatible = "arm,mali-t624"; > + reg = <0x2d000000 0x10000>; > + power-domains = <&power_devpd 2>; > + performance-domains = <&performance 4>; > + }; > + > + cpus { > + #address-cells = <2>; > + #size-cells = <0>; > + > + cpu@0 { > + device_type = "cpu"; > + compatible = "arm,cortex-a57"; > + reg = <0x0 0x0>; > + performance-domains = <&performance 1>; > + }; > + }; > + > -- > 2.25.1 >
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml index 26b886b20b27..98590a2982d0 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml @@ -255,6 +255,13 @@ description: |+ where voltage is in V, frequency is in MHz. + performance-domains: + $ref: '/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array' + description: + List of phandles and performance domain specifiers, as defined by + bindings of the performance domain provider. See also + dvfs/performance-domain.yaml. + power-domains: $ref: '/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array' description: diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..640e676ed228 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dvfs/performance-domain.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$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 + +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 ] + + performance-domains: + $ref: '/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array' + description: + A phandle and performance domain specifier as defined by bindings of the + performance controller/provider specified by phandle. + +additionalProperties: true + +examples: + - | + performance: performance-controller@12340000 { + compatible = "qcom,cpufreq-hw"; + 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. + gpu@2d000000 { + compatible = "arm,mali-t624"; + reg = <0x2d000000 0x10000>; + power-domains = <&power_devpd 2>; + performance-domains = <&performance 4>; + }; + + cpus { + #address-cells = <2>; + #size-cells = <0>; + + cpu@0 { + device_type = "cpu"; + compatible = "arm,cortex-a57"; + reg = <0x0 0x0>; + performance-domains = <&performance 1>; + }; + }; +