July 2019 - TF-A - lists.trustedfirmware.org

by Andre Przywara

Hi, (BCC:ing Antonio as well) not sure if someone gets notified, but I pushed a patch set to add Raspberry Pi 4 support to Trusted Firmware: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/1629 This port is quite a departure from the existing RPi3 port, that's why I wanted to start a discussion about it here. I originally started by copying files. But for the sake of simplicity, also to get away without a BL33 loader, it turned into just a BL31-only port (for now?). This ties more into the existing RPi Foundation boot style, as the resulting bl31.bin is a drop-in replacement for the existing armstub8.bin. So you put your AArch64 kernel into kernel8.img and copy bl31.bin to armstub8.bin (or use the respective config.txt options to point to any other filename), and it should work (TM). The code will pick up the actual kernel and DTB load address from the GPU firmware, patch the DT to use PSCI instead of spin tables, then will drop into EL2 at the kernel load address. There could (should?) be U-Boot or EDK-II there as well, or any other kernel, for that matter. The only thing Linux specific we do is to put the DTB address into x0. I guess this doesn't hurt, even if the BL33 payload does not use this information. I would be grateful to hear some opinions about this approach. Does that sound sensible? Is the split of the platform directory (plat/rpi3 -> plat/rpi/rpi[34]) reasonable? Shall we add this design as a build option to RPi3 as well? Shall we add the "full featured" RPi3 design to RPi4 also? Looking forward to any feedback! Cheers, Andre.

4 years, 9 months

3
2
0 0

Re: [TF-A] Defects detected by Coverity Scan Online

by Sandrine Bailleux

Hi, On 7/3/19 11:15 AM, Sandrine Bailleux via TF-A wrote: > We would need help from the TF-A community for analyzing and fixing > them, especially those in platform ports and drivers. Note that there > might be false positives, in which case we would just triage them as > such in the tool's database. > > Hopefully everyone should be able to view the defects, according to the > tool's settings. You might need to create an account on > https://scan.coverity.com for that. We've received a couple of requests from users to get access to the TF-A defects database in the Coverity Scan Online service. I think it's worth clarifying the different levels of access the tool offers and how we envisage the defects triaging. In Coverity Scan Online, users can have any of the following 4 roles (in ascending order of permissions): - Observer/User: Only sees defects summary. - Defect Viewer. - Contributor/Member: Can also triage defects. - Maintainer/Owner: Also has some admin powers, like managing users and submitting builds to be analyzed. Right now, all users should be able to see the project summary and view the defects in read-only mode so this is equivalent to the "Defect viewer" role. I suspect people still need to create an account in Coverity Scan Online and be logged in to see the data. We would expect subsystems and platforms maintainers (i.e. people listed in docs/maintainers.rst [1]) to manage the defects in the part of the codebase they own, as they know best how to assess the severity of these defects and how to fix or triage them. As such, they need to have the "contributor/member" role in the tool. If you are such a maintainer, please feel free to create an account and request this role. If you would like to delegate part/all of the triaging process to a peer, that is also possible. In this case, could you please send me an email to indicate who you have chosen for this task? This is just to make sure that whoever requests the "contributor/member" role has done so with the relevant maintainer's approval. Please be aware that those with "contributor/member" role will be able to triage any defects in any part of the codebase, and not just in the subsystem/platform they maintain. "Maintainer/Owner" role will be reserved to the main maintainers (i.e. people listed at the top of docs/maintainers.rst) for now. Best regards, Sandrine [1] https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a.git/tree/docs/maint…

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] How can I check detail error of CI failure?

by Sandrine Bailleux

Hi Jun, On 7/16/19 11:30 AM, John Tsichritzis via TF-A wrote: > Thank you for your email. Unfortunately detailed information is not available in Gerrit since CI is hosted internally. The maintainers post detailed information of the errors in case there is something that needs fixing. In this case I will post the error details in the Gerrit review itself. > > When a patch stack is submitted, usually we launch the tests on the topmost patch on the stack. In this case the entire branch gets tested, not a single commit. In other words, the testing doesn't do any "cherry-picking" on the patches, so even if there are dependencies between the patches this doesn't affect the test. That's why we usually launch the tests on the topmost patch. To add on top of what John said, I would like to mention that we are working with Linaro to have the CI loop opened up to all contributors in the future. When this day comes, you will be able to check the error log by yourself. In the meantime, I'm afraid you'll have to rely on Arm maintainers to give you the details, as John said. If they forget, please feel free to ping them in Gerrit (like you've already done for this patch). Best regards, Sandrine

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] How can I check detail error of CI failure?

by John Tsichritzis

Dear Jun, Thank you for your email. Unfortunately detailed information is not available in Gerrit since CI is hosted internally. The maintainers post detailed information of the errors in case there is something that needs fixing. In this case I will post the error details in the Gerrit review itself. When a patch stack is submitted, usually we launch the tests on the topmost patch on the stack. In this case the entire branch gets tested, not a single commit. In other words, the testing doesn't do any "cherry-picking" on the patches, so even if there are dependencies between the patches this doesn't affect the test. That's why we usually launch the tests on the topmost patch. Kind regards, John -- John Tsichritzis | Graduate Software Engineer Email: john.tsichritzis(a)arm.com<mailto:john.tsichritzis@arm.com> 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge, CB1 9NJ, United Kingdom https://www.arm.com/ On 16/07/2019 09.24, Jun Nie via TF-A wrote: Hi, I see below failure in this link: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/1367 How can I check the error log? I am not sure it is due to lack of earlier patch in patch set or something. Because local build is OK. Patch Set 4: Verified-1 Build Failed https://jenkins.oss.arm.com/job/tf-gerrit-tforg-l1/221/ : FAILURE Jun

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

How can I check detail error of CI failure?

by Jun Nie

Hi, I see below failure in this link: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/1367 How can I check the error log? I am not sure it is due to lack of earlier patch in patch set or something. Because local build is OK. Patch Set 4: Verified-1 Build Failed https://jenkins.oss.arm.com/job/tf-gerrit-tforg-l1/221/ : FAILURE Jun

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

Header file re-org

by Soby Mathew

Hi Everyone, This is regarding the header file re-organization patch that was submitted by Julius https://review.trustedfirmware.org/#/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/1207/. It is necessary for the headers which form the ABI/handover interface for BL31 to be able to copied separately and included in other projects. The current approach taken in the patch is to define a "raw" version of such headers and have the original header include them. This certainly is the easiest way to solve the problem. But if it possible to have a more refined solution, that would be preferable. For that I have the following questions : 1. Should the project recognize these special headers and have them organized together in a folder ? It is important to recognize that the ABI can be extended by the platform. I would expect even if these "common" headers are organized into a folder, the platform specific ones need not go together with them. 2. Should the header be restricted from including standard C library headers ? 3. Should these ABI headers be allowed to include each other ? Forward declaration might be able to solve some of the issues, but good to have a policy on this. The current patch as such can be treated as step towards the ideal solution, if that solution needs more work/churn in the code base. Comments welcome. Best Regards Soby Mathew

4 years, 9 months

3
8
0 0

Re: [TF-A] [RFC] isolate the memory into different pagetable for TF-A

by feng chen

Hi Soby Mathew, Thanks for your reply. IMHO, the isolate pagetable is much more heavy. It looks like a big idea. And if we have a dynamic mapping function, which map the service's needed memory in the service's call can also mitigate this. But this can be more slower. For accessing limited resource, what's your idea? -Feng On 2019/7/9 4:27 下午, Soby Mathew wrote: > Hi Feng, > Thanks for your email. This is an interesting topic and this is an active area of work for us but in a slightly different manner. Could you please send this message to the mailing list tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org , so we can continue conversation on the list ? > > The mailing list info can be found here : > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a > > Thanks & Regards > Soby Mathew > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: feng chen <puck.chen(a)foxmail.com> >> Sent: 08 July 2019 16:24 >> To: Dan Handley <Dan.Handley(a)arm.com>; Soby Mathew >> <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com>; Sandrine Bailleux <Sandrine.Bailleux(a)arm.com>; >> Alexei Fedorov <Alexei.Fedorov(a)arm.com>; Paul Beesley >> <Paul.Beesley(a)arm.com>; John Tsichritzis <John.Tsichritzis(a)arm.com> >> Subject: [RFC] isolate the memory into different pagetable for TF-A >> >> Hello maintainers, >> >> Is it possible for mapping the memory into different page-tables for TF-A? >> >> Since the ATF is running in EL3 mode, which is the highest level of ARM SoCs. >> >> And for security reason, once one service provided in TF has some >> vulnerabilities, It can access all the memory TF mapped. And it could be more >> acceptable. >> >> Thinking about the userland goto kernelland, the process use isolated page >> tables. >> >> So I want to implement this for TF-A, different memory-mapping for different >> service, and it can also use a shared mem-mapping space which all the service >> need to use. >> >> >> I want to know how do you think about this? Does this make sense to you? >> >> >> Cherrs, >> >> Feng >> > > 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. >

4 years, 9 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-A] [RFC] isolate the memory into different pagetable for TF-A

by Chen Feng

Move this folk to list > 在 2019年7月9日，下午4:27，Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com> 写道： > > Hi Feng, > Thanks for your email. This is an interesting topic and this is an active area of work for us but in a slightly different manner. Could you please send this message to the mailing list tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org , so we can continue conversation on the list ? > > The mailing list info can be found here : > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a > > Thanks & Regards > Soby Mathew > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: feng chen <puck.chen(a)foxmail.com> >> Sent: 08 July 2019 16:24 >> To: Dan Handley <Dan.Handley(a)arm.com>; Soby Mathew >> <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com>; Sandrine Bailleux <Sandrine.Bailleux(a)arm.com>; >> Alexei Fedorov <Alexei.Fedorov(a)arm.com>; Paul Beesley >> <Paul.Beesley(a)arm.com>; John Tsichritzis <John.Tsichritzis(a)arm.com> >> Subject: [RFC] isolate the memory into different pagetable for TF-A >> >> Hello maintainers, >> >> Is it possible for mapping the memory into different page-tables for TF-A? >> >> Since the ATF is running in EL3 mode, which is the highest level of ARM SoCs. >> >> And for security reason, once one service provided in TF has some >> vulnerabilities, It can access all the memory TF mapped. And it could be more >> acceptable. >> >> Thinking about the userland goto kernelland, the process use isolated page >> tables. >> >> So I want to implement this for TF-A, different memory-mapping for different >> service, and it can also use a shared mem-mapping space which all the service >> need to use. >> >> >> I want to know how do you think about this? Does this make sense to you? >> >> >> Cherrs, >> >> Feng >> > > 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.

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

Defects detected by Coverity Scan Online

by Sandrine Bailleux

Hello, As you may be aware, Trusted Firmware-A source code regularly gets analyzed by Coverity Scan Online [1]. This is a free service offered by Synopsys for open source projects, that TF-A has used since 2015. The analysis currently gets driven by Arm's internal CI system. We've recently made some improvements to this setup, which led to the tool analyzing more files. The latest analysis report from this morning shows 65 newly-found defects, scattered across the code base. We would need help from the TF-A community for analyzing and fixing them, especially those in platform ports and drivers. Note that there might be false positives, in which case we would just triage them as such in the tool's database. Hopefully everyone should be able to view the defects, according to the tool's settings. You might need to create an account on https://scan.coverity.com for that. Best regards, Sandrine [1] https://scan.coverity.com/projects/arm-software-arm-trusted-firmware

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

Why is assembly macro used for registering multi-console driver?

by Masahiro Yamada

Hi, Probably, I should have asked this before pushing my code. I have a question about finalize_console_register. Platforms call console_*_register() from C code. I do not know why we need to fill the callbacks in the assembler macro, finalize_console_register. We could call console_register() directly from C code, like this: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/1426/3/plat/… Maybe, we may want to register the console so early in order to enable plat/common/aarch64/crash_console_helpers.S in the boot-up code?

4 years, 9 months

2
1
0 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-A July 2019