Hi Kris,
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 1:37 PM Kris Kwiatkowski <kris(a)amongbytes.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using HiKey 960 for my research project. I've noticed that
> filesystem is not persistent between reboot. Is there a way
> to change it, so that any change to file in the /etc will be
> persistent?
There's no easy way of doing that with our repo based builds I'm aware
of. The purpose of our (OP-TEE team) builds is in principle to be able
to execute xtest and other test programs. For this use case it's
actually an advantage to start from a clean state each time. In your
case I think you need to pick a suitable distribution and update it as
needed to support OP-TEE. It could be worth looking at Yocto as there
is some OP-TEE support already.
Here's a short list of what's needed:
1. TF-A compiled with OP-TEE support (dispatcher in BL31 and load
support in bl2)
2. OP-TEE included in the FIP loaded by TF-A
3. OP-TEE nodes in device tree
4. OP-TEE driver enabled in the kernel (recent upstream kernel should
work in most cases)
5. tee-supplicant and libteec.so installed in the file system
6. tee-supplicant started
With that in place you should be good to go.
Cheers,
Jens
[BCC all OP-TEE maintainers]
Hi OP-TEE maintainers & contributors,
OP-TEE v3.12.0 is scheduled to be released at 2021-01-15. So, now is
a good time to start testing the master branch on the various platforms
and report/fix any bugs.
The GitHub pull request for collecting Tested-by tags or any other
comments is https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/pull/4291.
As usual, we will create a release candidate tag one week before the
release date for final testing.
In addition to that you can find some additional information related to
releases here: https://optee.readthedocs.io/en/latest/general/releases.html
Regards,
Joakim
Hi Robert,
Comments below.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Robert Delien via OP-TEE
<op-tee(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As discussed earlier, our application requires secured display contents and
> is using a secure frame buffer.
>
> Now to transit from U-Boot to Op-tee as smoothly as possible, I would like
> to copy the contents from the U-Boot frame buffer into the Optee frame
> buffer upon LCD driver initialisation.
>
> The U-Boot frame buffer address is calculated at run time and I haven't
> found a hand-off mechanism, but the physical address can be easily read
> from the LCDIF peripheral's registers. Unfortunately, no MMU mapping is
> present per default for this physical address outside the TZDRAM area.
>
> Is it possible to temporarily map this rather arbitrary non-secure physical
> DDR address outside TZDRAM, so I can access it through a virtual address?
> Preferably in a way that I can also remove this mapping after copying the
> frame buffer?
Yes, it's actually easier than one might first imagine. I assume you
will interact with OP-TEE via a Pseudo TA. This framebuffer is normal
non-secure DDR from OP-TEE point of view, so it should be possible to
just supply it as a memref parameter when invoking the PTA.
Cheers,
Jens
Hi,
As discussed earlier, our application requires secured display contents and
is using a secure frame buffer.
Now to transit from U-Boot to Op-tee as smoothly as possible, I would like
to copy the contents from the U-Boot frame buffer into the Optee frame
buffer upon LCD driver initialisation.
The U-Boot frame buffer address is calculated at run time and I haven't
found a hand-off mechanism, but the physical address can be easily read
from the LCDIF peripheral's registers. Unfortunately, no MMU mapping is
present per default for this physical address outside the TZDRAM area.
Is it possible to temporarily map this rather arbitrary non-secure physical
DDR address outside TZDRAM, so I can access it through a virtual address?
Preferably in a way that I can also remove this mapping after copying the
frame buffer?
Thanks in advance; Your help is highly appreciated.
With kind regards,
Robert.
--
DISCLAIMER
De informatie, verzonden in of met dit e-mailbericht, is
vertrouwelijk en uitsluitend voor de geadresseerde(n) bestemd. Het gebruik
van de informatie in dit bericht, de openbaarmaking, vermenigvuldiging,
verspreiding en|of verstrekking daarvan aan derden is niet toegestaan.
Gebruik van deze informatie door anderen dan geadresseerde(n) is strikt
verboden. Aan deze informatie kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend. U wordt
verzocht bij onjuiste adressering de afzender direct te informeren door het
bericht te retourneren en het bericht uit uw computersysteem te verwijderen.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 08:50:56 +0000
Vesa Jääskeläinen via OP-TEE <op-tee(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-10-08 08:53, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> > Hi Sumit,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:27 AM Sumit Garg <sumit.garg(a)linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Jens,
> >>
> >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 19:10, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg(a)linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Since the addition of session's client UUID generation via commit [1],
> >>> login via REE kernel method was disallowed. So fix that via passing
> >>> nill UUID in case of TEE_IOCTL_LOGIN_REE_KERNEL method as well.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: e33bcbab16d1 ("tee: add support for session's client UUID generation") [1]
> >>> Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg(a)linaro.org>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/tee/tee_core.c | 3 ++-
> >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Would you like to pick up this fix?
> >
> > Thanks for the reminder.
> > This looks good to me. I'll pick up this unless someone objects.
> > Vesa, does this look good to you too?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jens
>
> Sorry I have been away for a while from the mailing list.
>
> It seems that this is merged -- only thing that came to my mind with
> this is that:
>
> If we have some kernel protected keys or so -- should we have separate
> client UUID for kernel operations.
>
> Like when TEE_IOCTL_LOGIN_REE_KERNEL is given then client UUID would be
> generated for "kernel".
>
> This way we can make sure that kernel owned keys stays for kernel. Nil
> UUID is kinda reserved for public login.
Isn't this unnecessary? According to the TEE Internal Core API Specification,
TEE_Identity, a data type that "defines the full identity of a Client", consists
of a UUID *and* one of the TEE_LOGIN_XXX constants. Therefore, TEE_LOGIN_PUBLIC
with a nil UUID is a different client than TEE_LOGIN_REE_KERNEL with a nil UUID.
> Thanks,
> Vesa Jääskeläinen
>
> >
> >>
> >> -Sumit
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
> >>> index 64637e0..2f6199e 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
> >>> @@ -200,7 +200,8 @@ int tee_session_calc_client_uuid(uuid_t *uuid, u32 connection_method,
> >>> int name_len;
> >>> int rc;
> >>>
> >>> - if (connection_method == TEE_IOCTL_LOGIN_PUBLIC) {
> >>> + if (connection_method == TEE_IOCTL_LOGIN_PUBLIC ||
> >>> + connection_method == TEE_IOCTL_LOGIN_REE_KERNEL) {
> >>> /* Nil UUID to be passed to TEE environment */
> >>> uuid_copy(uuid, &uuid_null);
> >>> return 0;
> >>> --
> >>> 2.7.4
> >>>
>
Since the addition of session's client UUID generation via commit [1],
login via REE kernel method was disallowed. So fix that via passing
nill UUID in case of TEE_IOCTL_LOGIN_REE_KERNEL method as well.
Fixes: e33bcbab16d1 ("tee: add support for session's client UUID generation") [1]
Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg(a)linaro.org>
---
drivers/tee/tee_core.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
index 64637e0..2f6199e 100644
--- a/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
+++ b/drivers/tee/tee_core.c
@@ -200,7 +200,8 @@ int tee_session_calc_client_uuid(uuid_t *uuid, u32 connection_method,
int name_len;
int rc;
- if (connection_method == TEE_IOCTL_LOGIN_PUBLIC) {
+ if (connection_method == TEE_IOCTL_LOGIN_PUBLIC ||
+ connection_method == TEE_IOCTL_LOGIN_REE_KERNEL) {
/* Nil UUID to be passed to TEE environment */
uuid_copy(uuid, &uuid_null);
return 0;
--
2.7.4
Hi,
LOC monthly meeting is planned to take place Monday December 21st(a)16.00
(UTC+1). This time it will just be an open discussion, since we have no
planned presentation/talks otherwise. So feel free to suggest topics you'd
like to discuss (by replying to this email or write it directly in the
meeting notes).
The issue we had last time with Zoom ID not valid any longer should have
been fixed now. Note that the fix involved generating a new meeting ID,
which means that the old connection information is no longer valid. It's
also worth mentioning that all upcoming meetings can now be found at the
TrustedFirmware calendar (url is below).
Meeting details:
---------------
Date/time: Monday December 21st(a)16.00 (UTC+1)
https://everytimezone.com/s/f5c1ffe4
Connection details: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/
Meeting notes: http://bit.ly/loc-notes
Project page: https://www.linaro.org/projects/#LOC
Regards,
Joakim on behalf of the Linaro OP-TEE team