Hi Pali,
My understanding of the errata reporting mechanism is that some erratas are always checked during CPU boot. If the corresponding MACRO (ERRATA_A53_*) is disabled, then the ERRATA_MISSING code is reported.
I would be concerned if the CPU is affected by the errata. If the errata needs to be enabled, the fix would be to enable the ERRATA_A53_* from the platform makefile.
Hope this helps.
-Varun
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Pali Rohár via TF-A
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 9:11 PM
To: Olivier Deprez <Olivier.Deprez(a)arm.com>; Bipin Ravi <Bipin.Ravi(a)arm.com>; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: Konstantin Porotchkin <kostap(a)marvell.com>; Marek Behún <marek.behun(a)nic.cz>
Subject: Re: [TF-A] Missing CPU workaround warning message
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
Hello! Could somebody from TF-A helps with these two topics? I would really need to know if "missing errata warnings" debug message is some critical and needs to be fixed (and how?) or it is just a debug message and therefore should not be a warning...
On Monday 28 June 2021 17:11:18 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 28 June 2021 14:03:06 Olivier Deprez wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is the question strictly related to this platform not implementing the mentioned errata (for which a platform change can be emitted)?
>
> Hello! The first question is if this is an issue that CPU workaround
> is missing. And if yes (which seems to be) how big issue it is? And
> how to resolve it?
>
> > Or is it more generally that those "missing errata warnings" are not printed in release mode?
> > Assuming the latter, it looks to me it is the integrator mistake to not include the appropriate mitigations at development phase (hence while using debug mode for building TF-A).
> > Then when the device is deployed (hence most often built for release mode), if this message is printed it is an indication for a malicious agent that such attack vector through mis-implemented errata is possible. So the consequence is possibly even worst than just "missing" to include the errata.
> >
> > Other TF-Aers (Bipin?) may have other opinions?
>
> And this is a second question. If missing CPU workaround is an issue,
> should not be it printed also in release build?
>
> Also I see that in release builds are omitted not only messages about
> missing CPU workarounds, but basically _all_ warning messages. But
> notice messages are _not_ omitted. Which seems strange as in most
> cases notice message has lower priority than warning message.
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Olivier.
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of
> > Pali Rohár via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> > Sent: 28 June 2021 15:36
> > To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> > Cc: Konstantin Porotchkin; Marek Behún
> > Subject: [TF-A] Missing CPU workaround warning message
> >
> > Hello! If TF-A for Marvell Armada 3720 platform is compiled in debug
> > mode then at runtime it prints following warning messages:
> >
> > WARNING: BL1: cortex_a53: CPU workaround for 855873 was missing!
> > WARNING: BL1: cortex_a53: CPU workaround for 1530924 was missing!
> >
> > These lines are not printed in non-debug mode. It is an issue?
> > --
> > TF-A mailing list
> > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fli
> > sts.trustedfirmware.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftf-a&data=04%7C01
> > %7Cvwadekar%40nvidia.com%7Cb3605175f552468740e708d941836783%7C43083d
> > 15727340c1b7db39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637612854914595696%7CUnknown%7C
> > TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX
> > VCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2FW6HuFPYQCD5ECIA%2FZZxhm5ti5HYILNlsWTz
> > moJ7L8E%3D&reserved=0
--
TF-A mailing list
TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.tru…
Hi all,
What is the resolution for secure memory space with the Trust zone?
Is it dependent on the MMU resolution? Means, for example, If my MMU can set a range of 16 KB so can I set that range as a trusted zone as well?
P.S. I have ARM A35 (I am not sure but I think my MMU supports a resolution of 32KB)
You are welcome to comment if I have any mistakes
Thanks a lot,
Boaz.
________________________________
The privileged confidential information contained in this email is intended for use only by the addressees as indicated by the original sender of this email. If you are not the addressee indicated in this email or are not responsible for delivery of the email to such a person, please kindly reply to the sender indicating this fact and delete all copies of it from your computer and network server immediately. Your cooperation is highly appreciated. It is advised that any unauthorized use of confidential information of Nuvoton is strictly prohibited; and any information in this email irrelevant to the official business of Nuvoton shall be deemed as neither given nor endorsed by Nuvoton.
I want to know if we have a chance to support the compiler-based CFI(eg clang cfi, kernel support it.) function in tf-a.
I want to know that is anyone doing this, or if everyone is interested in this?
Cheers,
Feng
Hi HPChen
1. Can try setting PLATFORM_MAX_AFFLVL to MPIDR_AFFLVL2? I am assuming your platform has 1 cluster with 2 cores.
2. The project currently supports a limited number of platforms. The default test suite[1] contains several smaller test suites. The tests are designed to auto-detect critical features supported by the platform. Rather than fail, tftf will skip tests if a feature is not supported.
Please refer to the documentation for the tf-a-tests project here: https://trustedfirmware-a-tests.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html
[1] https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-A/tf-a-tests.git/tree/tftf/tests/tests-s…
Thanks,
Madhukar
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-A <mailman-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of MS10 HPChen0
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:43 PM
To: tf-a-owner(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: TFA affinity power level
Hi,
I'm Nuvoton software engineer. We have an A35 dual core platform. I ported the TFA for this platform.
Now I want test the TFA on test suite. I have some questions. Please help to answer. Thanks!
1. If define 'PLATFORM_MAX_AFFLVL' to MPIDR_AFFLVL1. The tftf test only identify single core no matter 'PLATFORM_CORES_PER_CLUSTER' define to 2.
How should I define 'PLATFORM_MAX_AFFLVL'?
2. How to select the test items? Should our platform need to pass all test items? Now I only test the tftf.
I'm new for TFA. Please help. Thanks!
Best regards,
HPChen
________________________________
________________________________
The privileged confidential information contained in this email is intended for use only by the addressees as indicated by the original sender of this email. If you are not the addressee indicated in this email or are not responsible for delivery of the email to such a person, please kindly reply to the sender indicating this fact and delete all copies of it from your computer and network server immediately. Your cooperation is highly appreciated. It is advised that any unauthorized use of confidential information of Nuvoton is strictly prohibited; and any information in this email irrelevant to the official business of Nuvoton shall be deemed as neither given nor endorsed by Nuvoton.
I noticed TF-A currently supports passing in 4 parameters and returning
up to 8. But SMCCC 1.1+ supports passing up to 18 and returning 18 in
AArch64 mode, and passing in/out 8 in AArch32.
I was wondering if there are any plans to add support for handling the
full set of parameters?
--
Rebecca Cran
Hi
I'm new to TF-A and OP Tee.
While I am using qemu to start TF-A, I got BL1 detected and failed to load
BL2, due to BL2 size out of bounds.
I changed TF-A BL1 source code to show more information:
diff --git a/common/bl_common.c b/common/bl_common.c
index 2fcb5385d9..a6239a5257 100644
--- a/common/bl_common.c
+++ b/common/bl_common.c
@@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ static int load_image(unsigned int image_id,
image_info_t *image_data)
/* Check that the image size to load is within limit */
if (image_size > image_data->image_max_size) {
- WARN("Image id=%u size out of bounds\n", image_id);
+ WARN("Image id=%u size(%lu, %u) out of bounds\n", image_id,
image_size, image_data->image_max_size);
io_result = -EFBIG;
goto exit;
}
the log shows:
NOTICE: Booting Trusted Firmware
NOTICE: BL1: v2.3():v2.3-dirty
NOTICE: BL1: Built : 15:56:43, Apr 20 2020
INFO: BL1: RAM 0xe04e000 - 0xe056000
VERBOSE: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for 806969 was not applied
WARNING: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for 813419 was missing!
VERBOSE: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for 813420 was not applied
VERBOSE: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for 814670 was not applied
WARNING: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for 817169 was missing!
INFO: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for disable_ldnp_overread was
applied
WARNING: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for 826974 was missing!
WARNING: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for 826977 was missing!
WARNING: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for 828024 was missing!
WARNING: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for 829520 was missing!
WARNING: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for 833471 was missing!
WARNING: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for 859972 was missing!
INFO: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for cve_2017_5715 was applied
INFO: BL1: cortex_a57: CPU workaround for cve_2018_3639 was applied
INFO: BL1: Loading BL2
VERBOSE: Using Memmap
WARNING: Firmware Image Package header check failed.
VERBOSE: Trying alternative IO
VERBOSE: Using Semi-hosting IO
INFO: Loading image id=1 at address 0xe01b000
WARNING: Image id=1 size(4294967295, 151552) out of bounds
ERROR: Failed to load BL2 firmware.
I'm using yocto (dunfell) + meta-arm to build / test TF-A + OP TEE under
qemuarm64.
meta-arm rev: c4f04f3fb66f8f4365b08b553af8206372e90a63
variables defined inside conf/local.conf ( for test )
23 MACHINE ?= "qemuarm64"
25
26 INSANE_SKIP_pn-optee-examples = "ldflags"
27 COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_pn-optee-examples = "qemuarm64"
28 COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_pn-optee-os = "qemuarm64"
29 COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_pn-optee-client = "qemuarm64"
30 COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_pn-trusted-firmware-a = "qemuarm64"
31
32 TFA_PLATFORM = "qemu"
33 TFA_UBOOT = "1"
34 TFA_DEBUG = "1"
35 TFA_SPD = "opteed"
36 TFA_BUILD_TARGET = "bl1 bl2 bl31"
37
38 OPTEEMACHINE:qemuarm64 = "vexpress-qemu_armv8a"
39 OPTEEOUTPUTMACHINE:qemuarm64 = "vexpress"
40
41 UBOOT_MACHINE_qemuarm64 = "qemu_arm64_defconfig"
I started qemu using following command line:
BIOS=tmp/deploy/images/qemuarm64/bl1.bin \
KERNEL=tmp/deploy/images/qemuarm64/Image-qemuarm64.bin \
runqemu mydefined-image-core-image-dev-optee nographic -d \
qemuparams=" \
-machine secure=on \
-m 4096 \
-d unimp -semihosting -semihosting-config enable=on,target=native \
"
Thanks
Hi all,
We made a few changes to the UFS driver. The proposed patches are posted
here:
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22ufs_patches%22+(status:open%2…
.
The patches mainly consist of the below changes:
1. Delete asserts. Return error values instead.
2. Add retry logic and timeouts.
3. Reuse ufshc_send_uic_cmd() for DME_GET and DME_SET commands.
Any feedback/comments on these patches would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
Jorge Troncoso
+ TF-A ML (for the benefit of other trying to use firmware encryption
feature)
Hi Promod,
On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 00:09, pramod kumar <pramod.jnumca04(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sumit,
>
> This is Pramod, Presently working in Amazon Lab126. I'm working in ATF and
> was going through your patch which provides f/w image encryption/decryption
> support.
>
> commit 7cda17bb0f92db39d123a4f2a1732c9978556453
> Author: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg(a)linaro.org>
> Date: Fri Nov 15 10:43:00 2019 +0530
>
> drivers: crypto: Add authenticated decryption framework
>
> Add framework for autheticated decryption of data. Currently this
> patch optionally imports mbedtls library as a backend if build option
> "DECRYPTION_SUPPORT = aes_gcm" is set to perform authenticated
> decryption
> using AES-GCM algorithm.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg(a)linaro.org>
> Change-Id: I2966f0e79033151012bf4ffc66f484cd949e7271
>
> I see that this support comes under DECRYPTION_SUPPORT macro hence can't
> be used dynamically. I see the TBBR spec provides a flag for this which
> could be used to exercise this feature dynamically-
> [image: image.png]
>
>
> Just wanted to understand that did you see any limitation to use this flag
> for making this feature support dynamically? Or do you have any plan to
> push follow up patches for this?
>
>
Actually there are security concerns associated if we use an unsigned
encryption flag in the header (see earlier discussions [1]).
> If this feature is made available, with the help of "disable_auth" flag,
> BL1 would be able to boot plane images even when TRUSTED_BOARD_BOOT is
> enabled in development mode.
>
I agree here that it would be useful to have such a flag in development
mode. For TRUSTED_BOARD_BOOT in development mode, I guess you are referring
to DYN_DISABLE_AUTH. If yes then I think such a macro makes sense for
encryption as well in order to disable decryption at runtime in development
mode, patches are very much welcome.
[1]
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-a/2020-February/000288.html
-Sumit
> Regards,
> Pramod
>