Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [RFC PATCH] drm:- Add a modifier to denote 'protected' framebuffer - Linaro-mm-sig

1 Oct 2019

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 8:57 AM Ayan Halder Ayan.Halder@arm.com wrote:
...
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 09:51:35AM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
...
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 07:36:45PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
...
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:15 PM Neil Armstrong narmstrong@baylibre.com wrote:
...
Hi,
On 17/09/2019 18:07, Liviu Dudau wrote:
...
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 02:53:01PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
...
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 01:42:53PM +0000, Ayan Halder wrote:
> Add a modifier 'DRM_FORMAT_MOD_ARM_PROTECTED' which denotes that the framebuffer
> is allocated in a protected system memory.
> Essentially, we want to support EGL_EXT_protected_content in our komeda driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ayan Kumar Halder ayan.halder@arm.com
>
> /-- Note to reviewer
> Komeda driver is capable of rendering DRM (Digital Rights Management) protected
> content. The DRM content is stored in a framebuffer allocated in system memory
> (which needs some special hardware signals for access).
>
> Let us ignore how the protected system memory is allocated and for the scope of
> this discussion, we want to figure out the best way possible for the userspace
> to communicate to the drm driver to turn the protected mode on (for accessing the
> framebuffer with the DRM content) or off.
>
> The possible ways by which the userspace could achieve this is via:-
>
> 1. Modifiers :- This looks to me the best way by which the userspace can
> communicate to the kernel to turn the protected mode on for the komeda driver
> as it is going to access one of the protected framebuffers. The only problem is
> that the current modifiers describe the tiling/compression format. However, it
> does not hurt to extend the meaning of modifiers to denote other attributes of
> the framebuffer as well.
>
> The other reason is that on Android, we get an info from Gralloc
> (GRALLOC_USAGE_PROTECTED) which tells us that the buffer is protected. This can
> be used to set up the modifier/s (AddFB2) during framebuffer creation.
How does this mesh with other modifiers, like AFBC? That's where I see the
issue here.
AFBC modifiers are currently under Arm's namespace, the thought behind the DRM
modifiers would be to have it as a "generic" modifier.
But if it's a generic flag, how do you combine that with other
modifiers? Like if you have a tiled buffer, but also encrypted? Or
afbc compressed, or whatever else. I'd expect for your hw encryption
is orthogonal to the buffer/tiling/compression format used?
This bit doesn't overlap with any of the other AFBC modifiers, so as
you say it'd be orthogonal, and could be set on AFBC buffers (if we
went that route).
...
...
...
...
> 2. Framebuffer flags :- As of today, this can be one of the two values
> ie (DRM_MODE_FB_INTERLACED/DRM_MODE_FB_MODIFIERS). Unlike modifiers, the drm
> framebuffer flags are generic to the drm subsystem and ideally we should not
> introduce any driver specific constraint/feature.
>
> 3. Connector property:- I could see the following properties used for DRM
> protected content:-
> DRM_MODE_CONTENT_PROTECTION_DESIRED / ENABLED :- "This property is used by
> userspace to request the kernel protect future content communicated over
> the link". Clearly, we are not concerned with the protection attributes of the
> transmitter. So, we cannot use this property for our case.
>
> 4. DRM plane property:- Again, we want to communicate that the framebuffer(which
> can be attached to any plane) is protected. So introducing a new plane property
> does not help.
>
> 5. DRM crtc property:- For the same reason as above, introducing a new crtc
> property does not help.

Just track this as part of buffer allocation, i.e. I think it does

matter how you allocate these protected buffers. We could add a "is
protected buffer" flag at the dma_buf level for this.
I also like this approach. The protected-ness is a property of the
allocation, so makes sense to store it with the allocation IMO.
...
...
...
...
So yeah for this stuff here I think we do want the full userspace side,
from allocator to rendering something into this protected buffers (no need
to also have the entire "decode a protected bitstream part" imo, since
that will freak people out). Unfortunately, in my experience, that kills
it for upstream :-/ But also in my experience of looking into this for
other gpu's, we really need to have the full picture here to make sure
we're not screwing this up.
Maybe Ayan could've been a bit clearer in his message, but the ask here is for ideas
on how userspace "communicates" (stores?) the fact that the buffers are protected to
the kernel driver. In our display processor we need to the the hardware that the
buffers are protected before it tries to fetch them so that it can 1) enable the
additional hardware signaling that sets the protection around the stream; and 2) read
the protected buffers in a special mode where there the magic happens.
That was clear, but for the full picture we also need to know how
these buffers are produced and where they are allocated. One approach
would be to have a dma-buf heap that gives you encrypted buffers back.
With that we need to make sure that only encryption-aware drivers
allow such buffers to be imported, and the entire problem becomes a
kernel-internal one - aside from allocating the right kind of buffer
at the right place.
In our case, we'd be supporting a system like TZMP-1, there's a
Linaro connect presentation on it here:
https://connect.linaro.org/resources/hkg18/hkg18-408/
The simplest way to implement this is for firmware to set up a
carveout which it tells linux is secure. A linux allocator (ion, gem,
vb2, whatever) can allocate from this carveout, and tag the buffer as
secure.
In this kind of system, linux doesn't necessarily need to know
anything about how buffers are protected, or what HW is capable of -
it only needs to carry around the "is_protected" flag.
Here, the TEE is ultimately responsible for deciding which HW gets
access to a buffer. I don't see a benefit of having linux decide which
drivers can or cannot import a buffer, because that decision should be
handled by the TEE.
For proving out the pipeline, IMO it doesn't matter whether the
buffers are protected or not. For our DPU, all that matters is that if
the buffer claims to be protected, we have to set our protected
control bit. Nothing more. AFAIK it should work the same for other
TZMP-1 implementations.
...
...
...
So yeah, we know we do want full userspace support, we're prodding the community on
answers on how to best let the kernel side know what userspace has done.
Actually this is interesting for other multimedia SoCs implementing secure video decode
paths where video buffers are allocated and managed by a trusted app.
Yeah I expect there's more than just arm wanting this. I also wonder
how that interacts with the secure memory allocator that was bobbing
around on dri-devel for a while, but seems to not have gone anywhere.
That thing implemented my idea of "secure memory is only allocated by
a special entity".
-Daniel
Like I said, for us all we need is a way to carry around a 1-bit
"is_protected" flag with a buffer. Could other folks share what's
needed for their systems so we can reason about something that works
for all?
To make things a bit more specific, we are thinking of the following
patch :-

diff --git a/include/linux/dma-buf.h b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
index ec212cb27fdc..36f0813073a2 100644
--- a/include/linux/dma-buf.h
+++ b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
@@ -279,6 +279,7 @@ struct dma_buf_ops {

    kernel module.


@list_node: node for dma_buf accounting and debugging.
@priv: exporter specific private data for this buffer object.



@is_protected: denotes that the buffer is



secure/protected/encrypted/trusted.

@resv: reservation object linked to this dma-buf
@poll: for userspace poll support
@cb_excl: for userspace poll support

@@ -306,6 +307,7 @@ struct dma_buf {
        struct module *owner;
        struct list_head list_node;
        void *priv;

  bool is_protected;
  struct dma_resv *resv;

  /* poll support */




@all, @amdgpu-folks :- Is this something you can use of to denote
secure/protected/encrypted/trusted buffers ?
I suppose.  At the moment, we don't really have a need for it since we
only our IPs support our encryption scheme and if we share buffers
between we can get to the secure status when we look up the amdgpu
buffer object internally in the kernel side.  Still might be useful
for cases where secure buffers get shared across drivers so we have a
generic check for secure status.
Alex
...
The way 'is_protected' flag gets used to allocate
secure/protected/encrypted buffers will be vendor specific.
Please comment to let us know if it looks useful to non Arm folks.
...
Thanks!
-Brian
...
...
Neil
...
Best regards,
Liviu
...
-Daniel
>
> --/
>
> ---
>  include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h b/include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h
> index 3feeaa3f987a..38e5e81d11fe 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h
> @@ -742,6 +742,15 @@ extern "C" {
>   */
>  #define AFBC_FORMAT_MOD_BCH     (1ULL << 11)
>
> +/*
> + * Protected framebuffer
> + *
> + * The framebuffer is allocated in a protected system memory which can be accessed
> + * via some special hardware signals from the dpu. This is used to support
> + * 'GRALLOC_USAGE_PROTECTED' in our framebuffer for EGL_EXT_protected_content.
> + */
> +#define DRM_FORMAT_MOD_ARM_PROTECTED       fourcc_mod_code(ARM, (1ULL << 55))
> +
>  /*
>   * Allwinner tiled modifier
>   *
> --
> 2.23.0
>
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

    