Sandrine,
Really glad to see this being pulled together. A couple of areas of feedback around the Platform Support Life Cycle.
As previously mentioned there are two orthogonal concerns captured in the current life cycle: Support and Functionality.
I'd like to see these split out. For functionality, chip vendors may not have a business case for supporting all features on a given platform but they may provide full support for the features they have chosen to include.
A simple example would be supporting PSA FF Isolation Level 1 only due to lack of HW isolation support needed to achieve Isolation Level 2 or greater.
Also, I'd like to see a stronger standard put forth for platform documentation. If a platform is "supported," I believe the documentation should be complete and accurate. A lack of complete and clear documentation leaves open a wide door for misuse/misconfiguration which could result in a vulnerable system.
Here is a more concrete proposal:
Functional Support:
Each project shall provide a standard feature or functionality list.
Each platform shall include in its documentation a copy of this list with the supported functionality marked as supported.
The platform documentation may reference a ticket if support is planned but not yet present.
The platform documentation shall explicitly state if a feature or function has no plans for support.
The feature/functionality list shall be versioned, with the version tied to the release version(s) of the project.
In this way, it will be clear if a platform was last officially updated for version X but the project is currently at version Y > X.
Note: projects will need to adopt (if they have not already) a version scheme that distinguishes between feature updates and bug fixes.
Each project and platform shall use tags or similar functionality on tickets to associate tickets to features/functionality and platforms.
If the names of tags can't match the name of the feature or platform exactly then a mapping shall be provided in the appropriate document(s).
Life Cycle State
Fully Supported
There is (at least) one active code owner for this platform.
All supported features build and either all tests pass or failures are associated with tracked known issues.
Other (not associated to a test) Known Issues are tracked
Documentation is up to date
Note: Projects should document standards on how "active" code ownership is measured and
further document standards on how code owners are warned about impending life cycle state changes.
Orphan
There is no active code owner
All supported features build and either all tests pass or failures are associated with tracked known issues.
Other (not associated to a test) Known Issues may not have been maintained (as there is no active code owner)
Documentation status is unclear since there is no active code owner.
There has been no change to the feature/functionality list in the project since the platform was last "Fully Supported"
Out of date
Same as orphan, but either:
there have been changes to the feature/functionality list, or
there are failing tests without tracked tickets, or
there are known documentation issues.
Deprecated
Same as Out of Date, but the build is broken. Platform may be removed from the project codebase in the future.
Erik Shreve, PSEM
Software Security Engineer & Architect (CMCU Platform Development)
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-M [mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] On Behalf Of Sandrine Bailleux via TF-M
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 4:42 AM
To: tf-a; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; tsc(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; op-tee(a)linaro.org
Cc: nd(a)arm.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [TF-M] Project Maintenance Proposal for tf.org Projects
Hello all,
As the developers community at trustedfirmware.org is growing, there is
an increasing need to have work processes that are clearly documented,
feel smooth and scale well. We think that there is an opportunity to
improve the way the trustedfirmware.org projects are managed today.
That's why we are sharing a project maintenance proposal, focusing on
the TF-A and TF-M projects initially. The aim of this document is to
propose a set of rules, guidelines and processes to try and improve the
way we work together as a community today.
Note that this is an early draft at this stage. This is put up for
further discussion within the trustedfirmware.org community. Nothing is
set in stone yet and it is expected to go under change as feedback from
the community is incorporated.
Please find the initial proposal here:
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/project-maintenance-p…
Please provide any feedback you may have by replying to this email
thread, keeping all 4 mailing lists in the recipients list.
I will collate comments from the community and try to incorporate them
in the document, keeping you updated on changes made between revisions.
Regards,
Sandrine
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
Hi Sandrine,
> Please find the initial proposal here:
>
> https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/project-maintenance-p…
>
> Please provide any feedback you may have by replying to this email
> thread, keeping all 4 mailing lists in the recipients list.
>
> I will collate comments from the community and try to incorporate them
> in the document, keeping you updated on changes made between revisions.
The maintenance proposal looks great ! I have some feedback on specific portions:
1. maintainer/owner/author patches. " Note that roles can be cumulative, in particular the same individual can be both a code owner and a maintainer. In such a scenario, the individual would be able to self-merge a patch solely affecting his module, having the authority to approve it from both a code owner and maintainer's point of view.": I'm always leery of people self-approving their patches. At a minimum, all self-patches should be published and a minimum wait time provided for feedback. Or preferably that another maintainer does the merge (it does not need to be mandated but should be suggested).
2. 'timely manner': This expectation should be more explicit - when the author can start requesting other maintainers to merge on assumption that silence == approval (or not). Such timeliness expectations are probably best set per project however.
3. The proposal does not address branching strategies. i.e. will there be separate maintainers for dev/master/stable branches? I don't think it needs to address it yet - keep it simpler for a start. But a todo saying something like "in the future this project maintenance proposal might be expanded to address multi-branch maintainership" would be good.
4. The platform lifecycle state machine has too many transitions. "Fully maintained" <-> "orphan" -> "out" seems sufficient to me.
Thanks,
Christian.
This message and any attachments may contain confidential information from Cypress or its subsidiaries. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message.
Hello Pankaj,
Hope you are doing well.
The initial email point to one change, but I see that as the tip of a patch series. I reviewed https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/3370
and left some comments, but did not review the complete patch series.
Are you requesting a review of the entire patch series?
-Varun
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Joanna Farley via TF-A
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 9:37 AM
To: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta(a)nxp.com>; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [TF-A] [EXT] Patch-set review request: New NXP Platform LX2120ARDB support on TFA
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
Hi Pankaj,
We will try, one of the arm team has done some +1 reviews and I have just kicked of a CI+2 run on the top of the patch stack. As you can imagine the Arm team is pressed for time the closer to the freeze date.
Other TF-A contributors you all have +1 rights so if folks have time assistance with further +1 reviews would be appreciated as that would help in accelerating confidence is getting +2 and merging.
Traditionally the project has relied on Arm folks but for some time now all contributors have had +1 rights on each other patches and the new project maintenance proposal is set up to take us in the direction of enabling all contributors helping each other.
Thanks
Joanna
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-a-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> on behalf of Pankaj Gupta via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Reply to: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta(a)nxp.com<mailto:pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>>
Date: Monday, 30 March 2020 at 20:48
To: "tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org>" <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Subject: Re: [TF-A] [EXT] Patch-set review request: New NXP Platform LX2120ARDB support on TFA
Please find the link to the review request.
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/3370
Regards
Pankaj
From: Pankaj Gupta via TF-A
Sent: Monday, 30 March, 22:57
Subject: [EXT] [TF-A] Patch-set review request: New NXP Platform LX2120ARDB support on TFA
To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Caution: EXT Email
Hi All,
Please pick this review request so that code changes can be merged before code freeze.
Thanks.
Regards
Pankaj
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Alexei,
Just curious, the patch is huge and will take some time to review. Do you expect this change to be merged before the v2.3 release?
-Varun
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Alexei Fedorov via TF-A
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 7:19 AM
To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [TF-A] Event Log for Measured Boot
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
Hi,
Please review and provide your comments for the patch which adds
Event Log generation for the Measured Boot.
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/3806
Thanks.
Alexei
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Pankaj,
We will try, one of the arm team has done some +1 reviews and I have just kicked of a CI+2 run on the top of the patch stack. As you can imagine the Arm team is pressed for time the closer to the freeze date.
Other TF-A contributors you all have +1 rights so if folks have time assistance with further +1 reviews would be appreciated as that would help in accelerating confidence is getting +2 and merging.
Traditionally the project has relied on Arm folks but for some time now all contributors have had +1 rights on each other patches and the new project maintenance proposal is set up to take us in the direction of enabling all contributors helping each other.
Thanks
Joanna
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Pankaj Gupta via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Reply to: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta(a)nxp.com>
Date: Monday, 30 March 2020 at 20:48
To: "tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: Re: [TF-A] [EXT] Patch-set review request: New NXP Platform LX2120ARDB support on TFA
Please find the link to the review request.
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/3370
Regards
Pankaj
From: Pankaj Gupta via TF-A
Sent: Monday, 30 March, 22:57
Subject: [EXT] [TF-A] Patch-set review request: New NXP Platform LX2120ARDB support on TFA
To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Caution: EXT Email
Hi All,
Please pick this review request so that code changes can be merged before code freeze.
Thanks.
Regards
Pankaj
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.
Hi,
Please review and provide your comments for the patch which adds
Event Log generation for the Measured Boot.
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/3806
Thanks.
Alexei
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.
Please find the link to the review request.
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/3370
Regards
Pankaj
From: Pankaj Gupta via TF-A
Sent: Monday, 30 March, 22:57
Subject: [EXT] [TF-A] Patch-set review request: New NXP Platform LX2120ARDB support on TFA
To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Caution: EXT Email
Hi All,
Please pick this review request so that code changes can be merged before code freeze.
Thanks.
Regards
Pankaj
Hello team,
Please help review and merge the following bug fixes before v2.3 is released.
* https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/3731: Tegra: fixup GIC init from the 'on_finish' handler
* https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/3770: Tegra186: increase memory mapped regions
Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------