The EFI secret area driver does not require the creation of a platform
device. Originally, this approach was chosen for simplicity when the
driver was first implemented.
With the introduction of the lightweight faux device interface, we now
have a more appropriate alternative. Migrate the driver to utilize the
faux bus, given that the platform device it previously created was not
a real one anyway. This will simplify the code, reducing its footprint
while maintaining functionality.
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
---
drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 5 -----
drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c | 29 ++++++++---------------------
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
index 8aebc747c65bc1b63d514a50fe6f35a9e3c1af0a..862b7744c28ecc9e5a64bbb3533c34119f50267f 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
@@ -465,11 +465,6 @@ static int __init efisubsys_init(void)
if (efi_enabled(EFI_DBG) && efi_enabled(EFI_PRESERVE_BS_REGIONS))
efi_debugfs_init();
-#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_COCO_SECRET
- if (efi.coco_secret != EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR)
- platform_device_register_simple("efi_secret", 0, NULL, 0);
-#endif
-
return 0;
err_remove_group:
diff --git a/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c b/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c
index 1864f9f80617e082feb574a15327949972c8cc1e..a60976750bef787c78401bf4569ee5d0c7d2b5f4 100644
--- a/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c
+++ b/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
* is the GUID of the secret entry, and its content is the secret data.
*/
-#include <linux/platform_device.h>
+#include <linux/device/faux.h>
#include <linux/seq_file.h>
#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
@@ -152,17 +152,12 @@ static const struct inode_operations efi_secret_dir_inode_operations = {
.unlink = efi_secret_unlink,
};
-static int efi_secret_map_area(struct platform_device *dev)
+static int efi_secret_map_area(struct faux_device *dev)
{
int ret;
struct efi_secret *s = efi_secret_get();
struct linux_efi_coco_secret_area *secret_area;
- if (efi.coco_secret == EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR) {
- dev_err(&dev->dev, "Secret area address is not available\n");
- return -EINVAL;
- }
-
secret_area = memremap(efi.coco_secret, sizeof(*secret_area), MEMREMAP_WB);
if (secret_area == NULL) {
dev_err(&dev->dev, "Could not map secret area EFI config entry\n");
@@ -191,7 +186,7 @@ static int efi_secret_map_area(struct platform_device *dev)
return ret;
}
-static void efi_secret_securityfs_teardown(struct platform_device *dev)
+static void efi_secret_securityfs_teardown(struct faux_device *dev)
{
struct efi_secret *s = efi_secret_get();
int i;
@@ -210,7 +205,7 @@ static void efi_secret_securityfs_teardown(struct platform_device *dev)
dev_dbg(&dev->dev, "Removed securityfs entries\n");
}
-static int efi_secret_securityfs_setup(struct platform_device *dev)
+static int efi_secret_securityfs_setup(struct faux_device *dev)
{
struct efi_secret *s = efi_secret_get();
int ret = 0, i = 0, bytes_left;
@@ -307,7 +302,7 @@ static void efi_secret_unmap_area(void)
}
}
-static int efi_secret_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
+static int efi_secret_probe(struct faux_device *dev)
{
int ret;
@@ -326,23 +321,15 @@ static int efi_secret_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
return ret;
}
-static void efi_secret_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
+static void efi_secret_remove(struct faux_device *dev)
{
efi_secret_securityfs_teardown(dev);
efi_secret_unmap_area();
}
-static struct platform_driver efi_secret_driver = {
- .probe = efi_secret_probe,
- .remove = efi_secret_remove,
- .driver = {
- .name = "efi_secret",
- },
-};
-
-module_platform_driver(efi_secret_driver);
+module_faux_driver(efi_secret, efi_secret_probe, efi_secret_remove,
+ efi.coco_secret != EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR);
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Confidential computing EFI secret area access");
MODULE_AUTHOR("IBM");
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
-MODULE_ALIAS("platform:efi_secret");
--
2.34.1On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 at 18:02, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>
> The EFI secret area driver does not require the creation of a platform
> device. Originally, this approach was chosen for simplicity when the
> driver was first implemented.
>
> With the introduction of the lightweight faux device interface, we now
> have a more appropriate alternative. Migrate the driver to utilize the
> faux bus, given that the platform device it previously created was not
> a real one anyway. This will simplify the code, reducing its footprint
> while maintaining functionality.
>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
So how is module autoload supposed to work with this driver?
> ---
> drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 5 -----
> drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c | 29 ++++++++---------------------
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> index 8aebc747c65bc1b63d514a50fe6f35a9e3c1af0a..862b7744c28ecc9e5a64bbb3533c34119f50267f 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> @@ -465,11 +465,6 @@ static int __init efisubsys_init(void)
> if (efi_enabled(EFI_DBG) && efi_enabled(EFI_PRESERVE_BS_REGIONS))
> efi_debugfs_init();
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_COCO_SECRET
> - if (efi.coco_secret != EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR)
> - platform_device_register_simple("efi_secret", 0, NULL, 0);
> -#endif
> -
> return 0;
>
> err_remove_group:
> diff --git a/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c b/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c
> index 1864f9f80617e082feb574a15327949972c8cc1e..a60976750bef787c78401bf4569ee5d0c7d2b5f4 100644
> --- a/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c
> +++ b/drivers/virt/coco/efi_secret/efi_secret.c
> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
> * is the GUID of the secret entry, and its content is the secret data.
> */
>
> -#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/device/faux.h>
> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
> #include <linux/fs.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> @@ -152,17 +152,12 @@ static const struct inode_operations efi_secret_dir_inode_operations = {
> .unlink = efi_secret_unlink,
> };
>
> -static int efi_secret_map_area(struct platform_device *dev)
> +static int efi_secret_map_area(struct faux_device *dev)
> {
> int ret;
> struct efi_secret *s = efi_secret_get();
> struct linux_efi_coco_secret_area *secret_area;
>
> - if (efi.coco_secret == EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR) {
> - dev_err(&dev->dev, "Secret area address is not available\n");
> - return -EINVAL;
> - }
> -
> secret_area = memremap(efi.coco_secret, sizeof(*secret_area), MEMREMAP_WB);
> if (secret_area == NULL) {
> dev_err(&dev->dev, "Could not map secret area EFI config entry\n");
> @@ -191,7 +186,7 @@ static int efi_secret_map_area(struct platform_device *dev)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static void efi_secret_securityfs_teardown(struct platform_device *dev)
> +static void efi_secret_securityfs_teardown(struct faux_device *dev)
> {
> struct efi_secret *s = efi_secret_get();
> int i;
> @@ -210,7 +205,7 @@ static void efi_secret_securityfs_teardown(struct platform_device *dev)
> dev_dbg(&dev->dev, "Removed securityfs entries\n");
> }
>
> -static int efi_secret_securityfs_setup(struct platform_device *dev)
> +static int efi_secret_securityfs_setup(struct faux_device *dev)
> {
> struct efi_secret *s = efi_secret_get();
> int ret = 0, i = 0, bytes_left;
> @@ -307,7 +302,7 @@ static void efi_secret_unmap_area(void)
> }
> }
>
> -static int efi_secret_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
> +static int efi_secret_probe(struct faux_device *dev)
> {
> int ret;
>
> @@ -326,23 +321,15 @@ static int efi_secret_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static void efi_secret_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
> +static void efi_secret_remove(struct faux_device *dev)
> {
> efi_secret_securityfs_teardown(dev);
> efi_secret_unmap_area();
> }
>
> -static struct platform_driver efi_secret_driver = {
> - .probe = efi_secret_probe,
> - .remove = efi_secret_remove,
> - .driver = {
> - .name = "efi_secret",
> - },
> -};
> -
> -module_platform_driver(efi_secret_driver);
> +module_faux_driver(efi_secret, efi_secret_probe, efi_secret_remove,
> + efi.coco_secret != EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR);
>
> MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Confidential computing EFI secret area access");
> MODULE_AUTHOR("IBM");
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> -MODULE_ALIAS("platform:efi_secret");
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 06:10:41PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 at 18:02, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > The EFI secret area driver does not require the creation of a platform > > device. Originally, this approach was chosen for simplicity when the > > driver was first implemented. > > > > With the introduction of the lightweight faux device interface, we now > > have a more appropriate alternative. Migrate the driver to utilize the > > faux bus, given that the platform device it previously created was not > > a real one anyway. This will simplify the code, reducing its footprint > > while maintaining functionality. > > > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> > > Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > So how is module autoload supposed to work with this driver? > IIUC, you are right. It doesn't work. I got carried away how efi_pstore was autoloaded in Ubuntu even without alias or platform/faux device creation. I don't know how yet but that works. This modules doesn't. So we may have to retain platform device/driver for autoloading reasons ? -- Regards, Sudeep
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 01:15:38PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 06:10:41PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 at 18:02, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > The EFI secret area driver does not require the creation of a platform > > > device. Originally, this approach was chosen for simplicity when the > > > driver was first implemented. > > > > > > With the introduction of the lightweight faux device interface, we now > > > have a more appropriate alternative. Migrate the driver to utilize the > > > faux bus, given that the platform device it previously created was not > > > a real one anyway. This will simplify the code, reducing its footprint > > > while maintaining functionality. > > > > > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> > > > Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org > > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > > > So how is module autoload supposed to work with this driver? > > > > IIUC, you are right. It doesn't work. I got carried away how efi_pstore was > autoloaded in Ubuntu even without alias or platform/faux device creation. I > don't know how yet but that works. This modules doesn't. > > So we may have to retain platform device/driver for autoloading reasons ? If that's required, yes.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 07:24:53AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 01:15:38PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 06:10:41PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 at 18:02, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > The EFI secret area driver does not require the creation of a platform > > > > device. Originally, this approach was chosen for simplicity when the > > > > driver was first implemented. > > > > > > > > With the introduction of the lightweight faux device interface, we now > > > > have a more appropriate alternative. Migrate the driver to utilize the > > > > faux bus, given that the platform device it previously created was not > > > > a real one anyway. This will simplify the code, reducing its footprint > > > > while maintaining functionality. > > > > > > > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> > > > > Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > > > > > So how is module autoload supposed to work with this driver? > > > > > > > IIUC, you are right. It doesn't work. I got carried away how efi_pstore was > > autoloaded in Ubuntu even without alias or platform/faux device creation. I > > don't know how yet but that works. This modules doesn't. > > > > So we may have to retain platform device/driver for autoloading reasons ? > > If that's required, yes. Thanks for confirming. I will drop this and see if autoloading is needed in any other modules as well. -- Regards, Sudeep
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.