Yep, mm_vm_dump sounds like what you're looking for. You can add a call
where you like and it will go to the log UART.
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 19:14, Raghu K via Hafnium <
hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
> Quick search indicates mm_vm_dump() and the functions it calls in
> src/mm.c should do what you want. i've not tried it or don't know the
> format, but this may be what you are looking for.
>
> -Raghu
>
> On 7/16/20 11:03 AM, Madhukar Pappireddy via Hafnium wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was wondering if there is support in Hafnium to dump page tables to a
> log file. I am new to the Hafnium project and would appreciate any help.
> Below is an example from TF-A which provides such provision.
> >
> > ......<snip>
> > VERBOSE: Translation tables state:
> > VERBOSE: Xlat regime: EL3
> > VERBOSE: Max allowed PA: 0xfffffffff
> > VERBOSE: Max allowed VA: 0xfffffffff
> > VERBOSE: Max mapped PA: 0x2f1fffff
> > VERBOSE: Max mapped VA: 0x2f1fffff
> > VERBOSE: Initial lookup level: 1
> > VERBOSE: Entries @initial lookup level: 64
> > VERBOSE: Used 3 sub-tables out of 5 (spare: 2)
> > [LV1] VA:0x0 size:0x40000000
> > [LV2] VA:0x0 size:0x200000
> > [LV3] VA:0x0 PA:0x0 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> > [LV3] VA:0x1000 PA:0x1000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> > [LV3] VA:0x2000 PA:0x2000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> > [LV3] VA:0x3000 PA:0x3000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> > [LV3] VA:0x4000 PA:0x4000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> > [LV3] VA:0x5000 PA:0x5000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> > [LV3] VA:0x6000 PA:0x6000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> > [LV3] VA:0x7000 PA:0x7000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> > [LV3] VA:0x8000 PA:0x8000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-XN-S
> > [LV3] VA:0x9000 PA:0x9000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-XN-S
> > [LV3] VA:0xa000 PA:0xa000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-XN-S
> > [LV3] VA:0xb000 size:0x1000
> > [LV3] (500 invalid descriptors omitted)
> > [LV2] VA:0x200000 size:0x200000
> > [LV2] (30 invalid descriptors omitted)
> > [LV2] VA:0x4000000 size:0x200000
> > ..... <snip>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Madhukar
> >
>
> --
> Hafnium mailing list
> Hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/hafnium
>
Quick search indicates mm_vm_dump() and the functions it calls in
src/mm.c should do what you want. i've not tried it or don't know the
format, but this may be what you are looking for.
-Raghu
On 7/16/20 11:03 AM, Madhukar Pappireddy via Hafnium wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if there is support in Hafnium to dump page tables to a log file. I am new to the Hafnium project and would appreciate any help. Below is an example from TF-A which provides such provision.
>
> ......<snip>
> VERBOSE: Translation tables state:
> VERBOSE: Xlat regime: EL3
> VERBOSE: Max allowed PA: 0xfffffffff
> VERBOSE: Max allowed VA: 0xfffffffff
> VERBOSE: Max mapped PA: 0x2f1fffff
> VERBOSE: Max mapped VA: 0x2f1fffff
> VERBOSE: Initial lookup level: 1
> VERBOSE: Entries @initial lookup level: 64
> VERBOSE: Used 3 sub-tables out of 5 (spare: 2)
> [LV1] VA:0x0 size:0x40000000
> [LV2] VA:0x0 size:0x200000
> [LV3] VA:0x0 PA:0x0 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> [LV3] VA:0x1000 PA:0x1000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> [LV3] VA:0x2000 PA:0x2000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> [LV3] VA:0x3000 PA:0x3000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> [LV3] VA:0x4000 PA:0x4000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> [LV3] VA:0x5000 PA:0x5000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> [LV3] VA:0x6000 PA:0x6000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> [LV3] VA:0x7000 PA:0x7000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-EXEC-S
> [LV3] VA:0x8000 PA:0x8000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-XN-S
> [LV3] VA:0x9000 PA:0x9000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-XN-S
> [LV3] VA:0xa000 PA:0xa000 size:0x1000 MEM-RO-XN-S
> [LV3] VA:0xb000 size:0x1000
> [LV3] (500 invalid descriptors omitted)
> [LV2] VA:0x200000 size:0x200000
> [LV2] (30 invalid descriptors omitted)
> [LV2] VA:0x4000000 size:0x200000
> ..... <snip>
>
> Thanks,
> Madhukar
>
Hi All,
The next TF-A Tech Forum is scheduled for Thu 16th July 2020 16:00 – 17:00 (BST). A reoccurring meeting invite has been sent out to the subscribers of this TF-A mailing list. If you don’t have this please let me know.
Agenda:
* Secure EL2 SPM (Secure Partition Manager) Hafnium-based
* In this TF-A Tech Forum session we present the status and open roadmap for the Secure Partition Manager firmware development. The TF-A SPM is the reference open source implementation for the PSA FF-A (Platform Security Architecture Firmware Framework for A-class) specification in the Secure world. It leverages the Armv8.4-Secure EL2 extension bringing virtualization technology in the Secure world (S-EL2 exception level). The development derives originally from the Google Hafnium project, which has been recently transitioned to https://www.trustedfirmware.org/ under the BSD 3-Clause license.
* Optional TF-A Mailing List Topic Discussions
If TF-A contributors have anything they wish to present at any future TF-A tech forum please contact me to have that scheduled.
Previous sessions, both recording and presentation material can be found on the trustedfirmware.org TF-A Technical meeting webpage: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-a-technical-forum/
A scheduling tracking page is also available to help track sessions suggested and being prepared: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/tf_a/tf-a-tech-forum-scheduling/ Final decisions on what will be presented will be shared a few days before the next meeting and shared on the TF-A mailing list.
Thanks
Joanna
No, it's only necessary if you're changing a submodule, or have changes
that are in some other way dependent on each other. Most changes don't need
a topic.
On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 17:50, Varun Wadekar via Hafnium <
hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think this is a good idea to keep multiple moving parts in sync. OTOH,
> does this also mean that all changes *must* be part of a topic branch? That
> would be an overkill IMO.
>
> -Varun
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hafnium <hafnium-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of
> Olivier Deprez via Hafnium
> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 6:16 AM
> To: Benjamin Copeland <ben.copeland(a)linaro.org>; Joanna Farley <
> Joanna.Farley(a)arm.com>; bill.fletcher(a)linaro.org
> Cc: hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: Re: [Hafnium] change.submitWholeTopic option for Gerrit
>
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> Ben,
>
> Kindly please hold on, I guess I should forward this comm. to other MLs
> for which the corresponding tforg projects will inherit the newly enabled
> feature.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Olivier.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Benjamin Copeland <ben.copeland(a)linaro.org>
> Sent: 09 July 2020 15:12
> To: Joanna Farley; bill.fletcher(a)linaro.org
> Cc: Olivier Deprez; Andrew Walbran; hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: Re: [Hafnium] change.submitWholeTopic option for Gerrit
>
> If we are all in agreement I will get it enabled.
>
> Regards
>
> Ben
>
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 13:51, Joanna Farley <Joanna.Farley(a)arm.com<mailto:
> Joanna.Farley(a)arm.com>> wrote:
> Agree __
>
> On 09/07/2020, 13:48, "Hafnium on behalf of Olivier Deprez via Hafnium" <
> hafnium-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:
> hafnium-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of
> hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:hafnium@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> We seem to reach a consensus within ARM that it is something we can
> enable.
> As a slight usage detail, we'd expect developers to use their initials
> for gerrit topics such a xy/topic-name.
> That's already recommended for TF-A, although not always enforced.
> This would avoid unintended/accidental merges in different repos
> because of gerrit topic name clashes.
>
> Does it make sense?
>
> Other folks in the ML, please shout if you disagree (you can also
> express that you agree 🙂).
>
> Regards,
> Olivier.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Andrew Walbran
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2020 11:28
> To: hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:
> hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Benjamin Copeland; Olivier Deprez
> Subject: Re: change.submitWholeTopic option for Gerrit
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 21:21, Andrew Walbran <qwandor(a)google.com
> <mailto:qwandor@google.com><mailto:qwandor@google.com<mailto:
> qwandor(a)google.com>>> wrote:
> Hello,
> How would people feel about enabling the change.submitWholeTopic
> option (
> https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/config-gerrit.html#cha…)
> for Gerrit?
>
> So far, we have relied on this to ensure that submodule changes get
> submitted along with the corresponding change to the main repository. Our
> usual workflow has been that whenever a change is made to one of the
> submodule repositories, both that change and the corresponding change to
> the main repository are tagged with the same topic. That way it is only
> possible to submit either once they have all been reviewed +2 and the main
> change has passed presubmit. This avoids submodules getting out of sync or
> changes to them being missed or not properly tested.
>
> However, it looks like this is a per-host configuration option rather
> than per-repository, so it would also affect the other Trusted Firmware
> projects using the same Gerrit host. Are there any other uses of topics
> there which would conflict with this config change?
>
> (If there are other people who might have an opinion on this please
> add them to the thread.)
> --
> Hafnium mailing list
> Hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:
> Hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/hafnium
>
> --
> Hafnium mailing list
> Hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/hafnium
> --
> Hafnium mailing list
> Hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/hafnium
>
Hello,
I think this is a good idea to keep multiple moving parts in sync. OTOH, does this also mean that all changes *must* be part of a topic branch? That would be an overkill IMO.
-Varun
-----Original Message-----
From: Hafnium <hafnium-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Olivier Deprez via Hafnium
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 6:16 AM
To: Benjamin Copeland <ben.copeland(a)linaro.org>; Joanna Farley <Joanna.Farley(a)arm.com>; bill.fletcher(a)linaro.org
Cc: hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [Hafnium] change.submitWholeTopic option for Gerrit
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
Ben,
Kindly please hold on, I guess I should forward this comm. to other MLs for which the corresponding tforg projects will inherit the newly enabled feature.
Thanks & Regards,
Olivier.
________________________________________
From: Benjamin Copeland <ben.copeland(a)linaro.org>
Sent: 09 July 2020 15:12
To: Joanna Farley; bill.fletcher(a)linaro.org
Cc: Olivier Deprez; Andrew Walbran; hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [Hafnium] change.submitWholeTopic option for Gerrit
If we are all in agreement I will get it enabled.
Regards
Ben
On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 13:51, Joanna Farley <Joanna.Farley(a)arm.com<mailto:Joanna.Farley@arm.com>> wrote:
Agree __
On 09/07/2020, 13:48, "Hafnium on behalf of Olivier Deprez via Hafnium" <hafnium-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:hafnium-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:hafnium@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
We seem to reach a consensus within ARM that it is something we can enable.
As a slight usage detail, we'd expect developers to use their initials for gerrit topics such a xy/topic-name.
That's already recommended for TF-A, although not always enforced.
This would avoid unintended/accidental merges in different repos because of gerrit topic name clashes.
Does it make sense?
Other folks in the ML, please shout if you disagree (you can also express that you agree 🙂).
Regards,
Olivier.
________________________________
From: Andrew Walbran
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2020 11:28
To: hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:hafnium@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Benjamin Copeland; Olivier Deprez
Subject: Re: change.submitWholeTopic option for Gerrit
Any thoughts on this?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 21:21, Andrew Walbran <qwandor(a)google.com<mailto:qwandor@google.com><mailto:qwandor@google.com<mailto:qwandor@google.com>>> wrote:
Hello,
How would people feel about enabling the change.submitWholeTopic option (https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/config-gerrit.html#cha…) for Gerrit?
So far, we have relied on this to ensure that submodule changes get submitted along with the corresponding change to the main repository. Our usual workflow has been that whenever a change is made to one of the submodule repositories, both that change and the corresponding change to the main repository are tagged with the same topic. That way it is only possible to submit either once they have all been reviewed +2 and the main change has passed presubmit. This avoids submodules getting out of sync or changes to them being missed or not properly tested.
However, it looks like this is a per-host configuration option rather than per-repository, so it would also affect the other Trusted Firmware projects using the same Gerrit host. Are there any other uses of topics there which would conflict with this config change?
(If there are other people who might have an opinion on this please add them to the thread.)
--
Hafnium mailing list
Hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:Hafnium@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/hafnium
--
Hafnium mailing list
Hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/hafnium
Agree __
On 09/07/2020, 13:48, "Hafnium on behalf of Olivier Deprez via Hafnium" <hafnium-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
We seem to reach a consensus within ARM that it is something we can enable.
As a slight usage detail, we'd expect developers to use their initials for gerrit topics such a xy/topic-name.
That's already recommended for TF-A, although not always enforced.
This would avoid unintended/accidental merges in different repos because of gerrit topic name clashes.
Does it make sense?
Other folks in the ML, please shout if you disagree (you can also express that you agree 🙂).
Regards,
Olivier.
________________________________
From: Andrew Walbran
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2020 11:28
To: hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Benjamin Copeland; Olivier Deprez
Subject: Re: change.submitWholeTopic option for Gerrit
Any thoughts on this?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 21:21, Andrew Walbran <qwandor(a)google.com<mailto:qwandor@google.com>> wrote:
Hello,
How would people feel about enabling the change.submitWholeTopic option (https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/config-gerrit.html#cha…) for Gerrit?
So far, we have relied on this to ensure that submodule changes get submitted along with the corresponding change to the main repository. Our usual workflow has been that whenever a change is made to one of the submodule repositories, both that change and the corresponding change to the main repository are tagged with the same topic. That way it is only possible to submit either once they have all been reviewed +2 and the main change has passed presubmit. This avoids submodules getting out of sync or changes to them being missed or not properly tested.
However, it looks like this is a per-host configuration option rather than per-repository, so it would also affect the other Trusted Firmware projects using the same Gerrit host. Are there any other uses of topics there which would conflict with this config change?
(If there are other people who might have an opinion on this please add them to the thread.)
--
Hafnium mailing list
Hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/hafnium
Hi Andrew,
We seem to reach a consensus within ARM that it is something we can enable.
As a slight usage detail, we'd expect developers to use their initials for gerrit topics such a xy/topic-name.
That's already recommended for TF-A, although not always enforced.
This would avoid unintended/accidental merges in different repos because of gerrit topic name clashes.
Does it make sense?
Other folks in the ML, please shout if you disagree (you can also express that you agree 🙂).
Regards,
Olivier.
________________________________
From: Andrew Walbran
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2020 11:28
To: hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Benjamin Copeland; Olivier Deprez
Subject: Re: change.submitWholeTopic option for Gerrit
Any thoughts on this?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 21:21, Andrew Walbran <qwandor(a)google.com<mailto:qwandor@google.com>> wrote:
Hello,
How would people feel about enabling the change.submitWholeTopic option (https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/config-gerrit.html#cha…) for Gerrit?
So far, we have relied on this to ensure that submodule changes get submitted along with the corresponding change to the main repository. Our usual workflow has been that whenever a change is made to one of the submodule repositories, both that change and the corresponding change to the main repository are tagged with the same topic. That way it is only possible to submit either once they have all been reviewed +2 and the main change has passed presubmit. This avoids submodules getting out of sync or changes to them being missed or not properly tested.
However, it looks like this is a per-host configuration option rather than per-repository, so it would also affect the other Trusted Firmware projects using the same Gerrit host. Are there any other uses of topics there which would conflict with this config change?
(If there are other people who might have an opinion on this please add them to the thread.)
Hi,
The issue happens because driver/linux/Makefile defines CHECKPATCH with a default script path only if CHECKPATCH is not already set (uses ?= operator)
It works by unsetting the existing environment CHECKPATCH from kokoro/build.sh when invoking the linux driver checkpatch as done here:
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/hafnium/hafnium/+/4879
I think that's fine with build dependencies, nothing to change here.
Regards,
Olivier.
________________________________
From: Andrew Walbran
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 17:21
To: Olivier Deprez
Cc: hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [Hafnium] kokoro/build and CHECKPATCH
If there are dependencies missing from https://hafnium.googlesource.com/hafnium/+/refs/heads/master/docs/GettingSt… then please send me a change to add them. I'm curious about pathlib, as it's not listed in https://hafnium.googlesource.com/hafnium/+/refs/heads/master/build/docker/D… either.
We should probably fix the build to ignore any locally set value of CHECKPATCH, as it should always be using the version checked into the repository.
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 16:01, Olivier Deprez <Olivier.Deprez(a)arm.com<mailto:Olivier.Deprez@arm.com>> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Notice I do git clean -fdx prior to trying CHECKPATCH set/not set, because it looks there's some dependency to local ninja build files.
When CHECKPATCH is set I'm still seeing the issue mentioned earlier.
When CHECKPATCH is not set, I got failures related to missing python dependencies on my ubuntu host (ply pathlib python-git). I don't recall seeing those dependencies listed in Hafnium pages, but that's fair enough. Now the checkpatch step passes by installing those python libs.
Obviously I'm not facing this issue when running through docker hermetic build.
So I guess it's low priority glitch, not sure if it really requires a fix or a notice in documentation?
Regards,
Olivier.
________________________________________
From: Andrew Walbran
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 13:32
To: Olivier Deprez
Cc: hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:hafnium@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: Re: [Hafnium] kokoro/build and CHECKPATCH
That's weird, I haven't seen that before. Running either kokoro/build.sh or 'make checkpatch' locally works for me, whether or not CHECKPATCH is set.
The Makefile in the root directory is setting CHECKPATCH unconditionally, but it looks like the one under drive/linux uses the existing value if there is one. Maybe we should change that?
What error do you get when CHECKPATCH is not set?
On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 18:18, Olivier Deprez via Hafnium <hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:hafnium@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Is there a known problem around checkpatch when running kokoro/build.sh locally?
I noticed if CHECKPATCH env variable is already set then kokoro/build.sh fails with:
+ export CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu-
+ CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu-
+ cd driver/linux
+ make HAFNIUM_PATH=/home/olidep01/WORK/hafnium-upstream checkpatch
<my-own-checkpatch-dir>/checkpatch.pl<http://checkpatch.pl> -f main.c
Must be run from the top-level dir. of a kernel tree
Makefile:43: recipe for target 'checkpatch' failed
make: *** [checkpatch] Error 2
If I unset CHECKPATCH before running build.sh then it fails at the driver/linux check.
Is this something known and/or needing fix?
Regards,
Olivier.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose,
or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
--
Hafnium mailing list
Hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:Hafnium@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/hafnium
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
