May 2021 - TF-A - lists.trustedfirmware.org

Re: [TF-A] Proposal: TF-A to adopt hand-off blocks (HOBs) for information passing between boot stages

by Okash Khawaja

Hi, Do we have slides and video from last week's discussion? Thanks, Okash On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:52 PM Simon Glass via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > Hi Harb, > > Thanks for the idea. I am still not completely sure what benefit UUID provides to an open project. I'd like to propose something different, more in the spirit of open collaboration. I also worry that the word 'standard' seems to be a synonym for UUIDs, UEFI, etc., i.e. enabling/preferring closed-source firmware and the continued decline of open-source projects. It really should not be. > > So I suggest: Use simple integer IDs and reserve some area for 'private' use. If you want to collaborate across projects outside your company, you either need to allocate a 'public' ID or agree privately between the parties which private ID to use. > > This means that the default and easiest option is for collaboration and a public ID, with private ones (whose purpose may be secret) reserved just for private use. > > Regards, > Simon > > On Wed, 5 May 2021 at 11:42, Harb Abdulhamid OS <abdulhamid(a)os.amperecomputing.com> wrote: >> >> Hey Folks, >> >> We wanted to put out a middle-ground proposal to help guide the discussion on the call tomorrow. >> >> >> >> A proposal that we have been discussing offline involves reserving a single tag ID for the purpose of construction UEFI PI HOB List structure, and that tag would be used to identify a HOB-specific structure that does leverage UUID based identifier. This will eliminate the burden of having to support UUID as the tag, and this enables projects that require UUID based identifiers for the broad range of HOB structures that need to be produced during the booting of the platform. Once we have a tag for a HOB list, this will enable various HOB producers that can add/extend the HOB list in TF-A code (or even pre-TF-A code), with a HOB consumer for that UUID/GUID on the other side (i.e. whatever the BL33 image is booting on that platform). >> >> >> >> Essentially, the idea is if someone would like to support HOB structures in a standard way using TF-A, they would wrap it up in a BL_AUX_PARAM/BLOB structure (whatever the group decides) and the way we identify the structure as a HOB list is with this new reserved tag. >> >> >> >> Hopefully that makes sense and less contentious. Look forward to discuss this further on the call. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> --Harb >> >> >> >> From: Manish Pandey2 <Manish.Pandey2(a)arm.com> >> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:14 AM >> To: François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org> >> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org>; Julius Werner <jwerner(a)chromium.org>; Harb Abdulhamid OS <abdulhamid(a)os.amperecomputing.com>; Boot Architecture Mailman List <boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org>; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot(a)lists.denx.de>; Paul Isaac's <paul.isaacs(a)linaro.org>; Ron Minnich <rminnich(a)google.com> >> Subject: Re: [TF-A] Proposal: TF-A to adopt hand-off blocks (HOBs) for information passing between boot stages >> >> >> >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> Please find invite for next TF-A Tech Forum session to continue our discussions on HOB implementation, feel free to forward it to others. >> >> >> >> The next TF-A Tech Forum is scheduled for Thu 6th May 2021 16:00 – 17:00 (BST). >> >> >> >> Agenda: >> >> Discussion Session: Static and Dynamic Information Handling in TF-A >> >> Lead by Manish Pandey and Madhukar Pappireddy >> >> · There is ongoing mailing lists discussion[1] related with adopting a mechanism to pass information through boot stages. >> >> The requirement is two-fold: >> >> 1. Passing static information(config files) >> >> 2. Passing dynamic information (Hob list) >> >> In the upcoming TF-A tech forum, we can start with a discussion on dynamic information passing and if time permits, we can cover static information passing. The purpose of the call is to have an open discussion and continue the discussion from the trusted-substrate call[2] done earlier. We would like to understand the various requirements and possible ways to implement it in TF-A in a generalized way so that it can work with other Firmware projects. >> >> >> >> The two specific item which we would like to discuss are: >> >> 1. HOB format: TF-A/u-boot both has an existing bloblist implementation, which uses tag values. Question, can this be enhanced to use hybrid values(Tag and UUID) both? >> >> 2. Standardization on Physical register use to pass base of HoB data structure. >> >> References: >> >> [1] https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-a/2021-April/001069.html >> >> [2] https://linaro-org.zoom.us/rec/share/zjfHeMIumkJhirLCVQYTHR6ftaqyWvF_0klgQn… Passcode: IPn+5q% >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> Joanna >> >> >> >> You have been invited to the following event. >> >> TF-A Tech Forum >> >> When >> >> Every 2 weeks from 16:00 to 17:00 on Thursday United Kingdom Time >> >> Calendar >> >> tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org >> >> Who >> >> • >> >> Bill Fletcher- creator >> >> • >> >> tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org >> >> more details » >> >> >> >> We run an open technical forum call for anyone to participate and it is not restricted to Trusted Firmware project members. It will operate under the guidance of the TF TSC. >> >> >> >> Feel free to forward this invite to colleagues. Invites are via the TF-A mailing list and also published on the Trusted Firmware website. Details are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-a-technical-forum/ >> >> >> >> Trusted Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. >> >> >> >> Join Zoom Meeting >> >> https://zoom.us/j/9159704974 >> >> >> >> Meeting ID: 915 970 4974 >> >> >> >> One tap mobile >> >> +16465588656,,9159704974# US (New York) >> >> +16699009128,,9159704974# US (San Jose) >> >> >> >> Dial by your location >> >> +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) >> >> +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) >> >> 877 853 5247 US Toll-free >> >> 888 788 0099 US Toll-free >> >> Meeting ID: 915 970 4974 >> >> Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad27hc6t7h >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org> >> Sent: 08 April 2021 16:50 >> To: Manish Pandey2 <Manish.Pandey2(a)arm.com> >> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org>; Julius Werner <jwerner(a)chromium.org>; Harb Abdulhamid OS <abdulhamid(a)os.amperecomputing.com>; Boot Architecture Mailman List <boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org>; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>; U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot(a)lists.denx.de>; Paul Isaac's <paul.isaacs(a)linaro.org>; Ron Minnich <rminnich(a)google.com> >> Subject: Re: [TF-A] Proposal: TF-A to adopt hand-off blocks (HOBs) for information passing between boot stages >> >> >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> here is the meeting recording: >> >> https://linaro-org.zoom.us/rec/share/zjfHeMIumkJhirLCVQYTHR6ftaqyWvF_0klgQn… Passcode: IPn+5q%z >> >> >> >> I am really sorry about the confusion related to the meeting time. I have now understood: the Collaborate portal uses a specific calendar which is tied to US/Chicago timezone while the actual Google Calendar is tied to Central Europe timezone. I am going to drop the Collaborate portal and use a shared Google calendar (it should be visible on the trusted-substrate.org page). >> >> >> >> I'll try to summarize what I learnt and highlight my view on what can be next steps in a future mail. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> FF >> >> >> >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 13:56, Manish Pandey2 via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> From TF-A project point of view, we prefer to use existing mechanism to pass parameters across boot stages using linked list of tagged elements (as suggested by Julius). It has support for both generic and SiP-specific tags. Having said that, it does not stop partners to introduce new mechanisms suitable for their usecase in platform port initially and later move to generic code if its suitable for other platforms. >> >> >> >> To start with, Ampere can introduce a platform specific implementation of memory tag(speed/NUMA topology etc) which can be evaluated and discussed for generalization in future. The tag will be populated in BL2 stage and can be forwarded to further stages(and to BL33) by passing the head of list pointer in one of the registers. Initially any register can be used but going forward a standardization will be needed. >> >> >> >> The U-boot bloblist mentioned by Simon is conceptually similar to what TF-A is using, if there is consensus of using bloblist/taglist then TF-A tag list may be enhanced to take best of both the implementations. >> >> >> >> One of the potential problems of having structure used in different projects is maintainability, this can be avoided by having a single copy of these structures in TF-A (kept inside "include/export" which intended to be used by other projects.) >> >> >> >> Regarding usage of either UUID or tag, I echo the sentiments of Simon and Julius to keep it simple and use tag values. >> >> >> >> Looking forward to having further discussions on zoom call today. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Manish P >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Julius Werner via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> >> Sent: 25 March 2021 02:43 >> To: Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org> >> Cc: Harb Abdulhamid OS <abdulhamid(a)os.amperecomputing.com>; Boot Architecture Mailman List <boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org>; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>; U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot(a)lists.denx.de>; Paul Isaac's <paul.isaacs(a)linaro.org>; Ron Minnich <rminnich(a)google.com> >> Subject: Re: [TF-A] Proposal: TF-A to adopt hand-off blocks (HOBs) for information passing between boot stages >> >> >> >> Just want to point out that TF-A currently already supports a (very simple) mechanism like this: >> >> >> >> https://review.trustedfirmware.org/plugins/gitiles/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/… >> >> https://review.trustedfirmware.org/plugins/gitiles/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/… >> >> https://review.trustedfirmware.org/plugins/gitiles/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/… >> >> >> >> It's just a linked list of tagged elements. The tag space is split into TF-A-wide generic tags and SiP-specific tags (with plenty of room to spare if more areas need to be defined -- a 64-bit tag can fit a lot). This is currently being used by some platforms that run coreboot in place of BL1/BL2, to pass information from coreboot (BL2) to BL31. >> >> >> >> I would echo Simon's sentiment of keeping this as simple as possible and avoiding complicated and bloated data structures with UUIDs. You usually want to parse something like this as early as possible in the passed-to firmware stage, particularly if the structure encodes information about the debug console (like it does for the platforms I mentioned above). For example, in BL31 this basically means doing it right after moving from assembly to C in bl31_early_platform_setup2() to get the console up before running anything else. At that point in the BL31 initialization, the MMU and caches are disabled, so data accesses are pretty expensive and you don't want to spend a lot of parsing effort or calculate complicated checksums or the like. You just want something extremely simple where you ideally have to touch every data word only once. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 5:06 PM Simon Glass via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Harb, >> >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 at 11:39, Harb Abdulhamid OS <abdulhamid(a)os.amperecomputing.com> wrote: >> >> Hello Folks, >> >> Appreciate the feedback and replies on this. Glad to see that there is interest in this topic. >> >> >> >> I try to address the comments/feedback from Francois and Simon below…. >> >> >> >> @François Ozog – happy to discuss this on a zoom call. I will make that time slot work, and will be available to attend April 8, 4pm CT. >> >> >> >> Note that I’m using the term “HOB” here more generically, as there are typically vendor specific structures beyond the resource descriptor HOB, which provides only a small subset of the information that needs to be passed between the boot phases. >> >> >> >> The whole point here is to provide mechanism to develop firmware that we can build ARM Server SoC’s that support *any* BL33 payload (e.g. EDK2, AptioV, CoreBoot, and maybe even directly boot strapping LinuxBoot at some point). In other-words, we are trying to come up with a TF-A that would be completely agnostic to the implementation of BL33 (i.e. BL33 is built completely independently by a separate entity – e.g. an ODM/OEM). >> >> >> >> Keep in mind, in the server/datacenter market segment we are not building vertically integrated systems with a single entity compiling firmware/software stacks like most folks in TF-A have become use to. There are two categories of higher level firmware code blobs in the server/datacenter model: >> >> “SoC” or “silicon” firmware – in TF-A this may map to BL1, BL2, BL31, and *possibly* one or more BL32 instances >> “Platform” or “board” firmware – in TF-A this may map to BL33 and *possibly* one or more BL32 instances. >> >> >> >> Even the platform firmware stack could be further fragmented by having multiple entities involved in delivering the entire firmware stack: IBVs, ODMs, OEMs, CSPs, and possibly even device vendor code. >> >> >> >> To support a broad range of platform designs with a broad range of memory devices, we need a crisp and clear contract between the SoC firmware that initializes memory (e.g. BL2) and how that platform boot firmware (e.g. BL33) gathers information about what memory that was initialized, at what speeds, NUMA topology, and many other relevant information that needs to be known and comprehended by the platform firmware and eventually by the platform software. >> >> >> >> I understand the versatility of DT, but I see two major problems with DT: >> >> DT requires more complicated parsing to get properties, and even more complex to dynamically set properties – this HOB structures may need to be generated in boot phases where DDR is not available, and therefore we will be extremely memory constrained. >> DT is probably overkill for this purpose – We really just want a list of pointers to simple C structures that code cast (e.g. JEDEC SPD data blob) >> >> >> >> I think that we should not mix the efforts around DT/ACPI specs with what we are doing here, because those specs and concepts were developed for a completely different purpose (i.e. abstractions needed for OS / RTOS software, and not necessarily suitable for firmware-to-firmware hand-offs). >> >> >> >> Frankly, I would personally push back pretty hard on defining SMC’s for something that should be one way information passing. Every SMC we add is another attack vector to the secure world and an increased burden on the folks that have to do security auditing and threat analysis. I see no benefit in exposing these boot/HOB/BOB structures at run-time via SMC calls. >> >> >> >> Please do let me know if you disagree and why. Look forward to discussing on this thread or on the call. >> >> >> >> @Simon Glass - Thanks for the pointer to bloblist. I briefly reviewed and it seems like a good baseline for what we may be looking for. >> >> >> >> That being said, I would say that there is some benefit in having some kind of unique identifiers (e.g. UUID or some unique signature) so that we can tie standardized data structures (based on some future TBD specs) to a particular ID. For example, if the TPM driver in BL33 is looking for the TPM structure in the HOB/BOB list, and may not care about the other data blobs. The driver needs a way to identify and locate the blob it cares about. >> >> >> >> The tag is intended to serve that purpose, although perhaps it should switch from an auto-allocating enum to one with explicit values for each entry and a range for 'local' use. >> >> >> >> I guess we can achieve this with the tag, but the problem with tag when you have eco-system with a lot of parties doing parallel development, you can end up with tag collisions and folks fighting about who has rights to what tag values. We would need some official process for folks to register tags for whatever new structures we define, or maybe some tag range for vendor specific structures. This comes with a lot of pain and bureaucracy. On the other hand, UUID has been a proven way to make it easy to just define your own blobs with *either* standard or vendor specific structures without worry of ID collisions between vendors. >> >> >> >> True. I think the pain is overstated, though. In this case I think we actually want something that can be shared between projects and orgs, so some amount of coordination could be considered a benefit. It could just be a github pull request. I find the UUID unfriendly and not just to code size and eyesight! Trying to discover what GUIDs mean or are valid is quite tricky. E.g. see this code: >> >> >> >> #define FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_TSEG_GUID \ >> EFI_GUID(0xd038747c, 0xd00c, 0x4980, \ >> 0xb3, 0x19, 0x49, 0x01, 0x99, 0xa4, 0x7d, 0x55) >> >> (etc.) >> >> >> >> static struct guid_name { >> efi_guid_t guid; >> const char *name; >> } guid_name[] = { >> { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_TSEG_GUID, "TSEG" }, >> { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_FSP_GUID, "FSP" }, >> { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_SMM_PEI_SMRAM_GUID, "SMM PEI SMRAM" }, >> { FSP_NON_VOLATILE_STORAGE_HOB_GUID, "NVS" }, >> { FSP_VARIABLE_NV_DATA_HOB_GUID, "Variable NVS" }, >> { FSP_GRAPHICS_INFO_HOB_GUID, "Graphics info" }, >> { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_PCD_DATABASE_GUID1, "PCD database ea" }, >> { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_PCD_DATABASE_GUID2, "PCD database 9b" }, >> >> (never figured out what those two are) >> >> >> { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_PEIM_DXE_GUID, "PEIM Init DXE" }, >> { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_ALLOC_STACK_GUID, "Alloc stack" }, >> { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_SMBIOS_MEMORY_GUID, "SMBIOS memory" }, >> { {}, "zero-guid" }, >> {} >> }; >> >> static const char *guid_to_name(const efi_guid_t *guid) >> { >> struct guid_name *entry; >> >> for (entry = guid_name; entry->name; entry++) { >> if (!guidcmp(guid, &entry->guid)) >> return entry->name; >> } >> >> return NULL; >> } >> >> >> >> Believe it or not it took a fair bit of effort to find just that small list, with nearly every one in a separate doc, from memory. >> >> >> >> >> >> We can probably debate whether there is any value in GUID/UUID or not during the call… but again, boblist seems like a reasonable starting point as an alternative to HOB. >> >> >> >> Indeed. There is certainly value in both approaches. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Simon >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> --Harb >> >> >> >> From: François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:00 AM >> To: François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org>; Ron Minnich <rminnich(a)google.com>; Paul Isaac's <paul.isaacs(a)linaro.org> >> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org>; Harb Abdulhamid OS <abdulhamid(a)os.amperecomputing.com>; Boot Architecture Mailman List <boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org>; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org >> Subject: Re: [TF-A] Proposal: TF-A to adopt hand-off blocks (HOBs) for information passing between boot stages >> >> >> >> +Ron Minnich +Paul Isaac's >> >> >> >> Adding Ron and Paul because I think this interface should be also benefiting LinuxBoot efforts. >> >> >> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 11:17, François Ozog via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I propose we cover the topic at the next Trusted Substrate zoom call on April 8th 4pm CET. >> >> >> >> The agenda: >> >> ABI between non-secure firmware and the rest of firmware (EL3, S-EL1, S-EL2, SCP) to adapt hardware description to some runtime conditions. >> >> runtime conditions here relates to DRAM size and topology detection, secure DRAM memory carvings, PSCI and SCMI interface publishing. >> >> >> >> For additional background on existing metadata: UEFI Platform Initialization Specification Version 1.7, 5.5 Resource Descriptor HOB >> >> Out of the ResourceType we care about is EFI_RESOURCE_SYSTEM_MEMORY. >> >> This HOB lacks memory NUMA attachment or something that could be related to fill SRAT table for ACPI or relevant DT proximity domains. >> >> HOB is not consistent accros platforms: some platforms (Arm) lists memory from the booting NUMA node, other platforms (x86) lists all memory from all NUMA nodes. (At least this is the case on the two platforms I tested). >> >> >> >> There are two proposals to use memory structures from SPL/BLx up to the handover function (as defined in the Device Tree technical report) which can be U-boot (BL33 or just U-Boot in case of SPL/U-Boot scheme) or EDK2. >> >> I would propose we also discuss possibility of FF-A interface to actually query information or request actions to be done (this is a model actually used in some SoCs with proprietary SMC calls). >> >> >> >> Requirements (to be validated): >> >> - ACPI and DT hardware descriptions. >> >> - agnostic to boot framework (SPL/U-Boot, TF-A/U-Boot, TF-A/EDK2) >> >> - agnostic to boot framework (SPL/U-Boot, TF-A/U-Boot, TF-A/EDK2, TF-A/LinuxBoot) >> >> - at least allows complete DRAM description and "persistent" usage (reserved areas for secure world or other usages) >> >> - support secure world device assignment >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> FF >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 19:56, Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Can I suggest using bloblist for this instead? It is lightweight, >> easier to parse, doesn't have GUIDs and is already used within U-Boot >> for passing info between SPL/U-Boot, etc. >> >> Docs here: https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/doc/README.bloblist >> Header file describes the format: >> https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/include/bloblist.h >> >> Full set of unit tests: >> https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/test/bloblist.c >> >> Regards, >> Simon >> >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 23:58, François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org> wrote: >> > >> > +Boot Architecture Mailman List <boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org> >> > >> > standardization is very much welcomed here and need to accommodate a very >> > diverse set of situations. >> > For example, TEE OS may need to pass memory reservations to BL33 or >> > "capture" a device for the secure world. >> > >> > I have observed a number of architectures: >> > 1) pass information from BLx to BLy in the form of a specific object >> > 2) BLx called by BLy by a platform specific SMC to get information >> > 3) BLx called by BLy by a platform specific SMC to perform Device Tree >> > fixups >> > >> > I also imagined a standardized "broadcast" FF-A call so that any firmware >> > element can either provide information or "do something". >> > >> > My understanding of your proposal is about standardizing on architecture 1) >> > with the HOB format. >> > >> > The advantage of the HOB is simplicity but it may be difficult to implement >> > schemes such as pruning a DT because device assignment in the secure world. >> > >> > In any case, it looks feasible to have TF-A and OP-TEE complement the list >> > of HOBs to pass information downstream (the bootflow). >> > >> > It would be good to start with building the comprehensive list of >> > information that need to be conveyed between firmware elements: >> > >> > information. | authoritative entity | reporting entity | information >> > exchanged: >> > dram | TFA | TFA | >> > <format to be detailed, NUMA topology to build the SRAT table or DT >> > equivalent?> >> > PSCI | SCP | TFA? | >> > SCMI | SCP or TEE-OS | TFA? TEE-OS?| >> > secure SRAM | TFA. | TFA. | >> > secure DRAM | TFA? TEE-OS? | TFA? TEE-OS? | >> > other? | | >> > | >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > FF >> > >> > >> > On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 09:34, Harb Abdulhamid OS via TF-A < >> > tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Hello Folks, >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I'm emailing to start an open discussion about the adoption of a concept >> > > known as "hand-off blocks" or HOB to become a part of the TF-A Firmware >> > > Framework Architecture (FFA). This is something that is a pretty major >> > > pain point when it comes to the adoption of TF-A in ARM Server SoC’s >> > > designed to enable a broad range of highly configurable datacenter >> > > platforms. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > What is a HOB (Background)? >> > > >> > > --------------------------- >> > > >> > > UEFI PI spec describes a particular definition for how HOB may be used for >> > > transitioning between the PEI and DXE boot phases, which is a good >> > > reference point for this discussion, but not necessarily the exact solution >> > > appropriate for TF-A. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > A HOB is simply a dynamically generated data structure passed in between >> > > two boot phases. This is information that was obtained through discovery >> > > and needs to be passed forward to the next boot phase *once*, with no API >> > > needed to call back (e.g. no call back into previous firmware phase is >> > > needed to fetch this information at run-time - it is simply passed one time >> > > during boot). >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > There may be one or more HOBs passed in between boot phases. If there are >> > > more than one HOB that needs to be passed, this can be in a form of a "HOB >> > > table", which (for example) could be a UUID indexed array of pointers to >> > > HOB structures, used to locate a HOB of interest (based on UUID). In such >> > > cases, instead of passing a single HOB, the boot phases may rely on passing >> > > the pointer to the HOB table. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > This has been extremely useful concept to employ on highly configurable >> > > systems that must rely on flexible discovery mechanisms to initialize and >> > > boot the system. This is especially helpful when you have multiple >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Why do we need HOBs in TF-A?: >> > > >> > > ----------------------------- >> > > >> > > It is desirable that EL3 firmware (e.g. TF-A) built for ARM Server SoC in >> > > a way that is SoC specific *but* platform agnostic. This means that a >> > > single ARM SoC that a SiP may deliver to customers may provide a single >> > > TF-A binary (e.g. BL1, BL2, BL31) that could be used to support a broad >> > > range of platform designs and configurations in order to boot a platform >> > > specific firmware (e.g. BL33 and possibly even BL32 code). In order to >> > > achieve this, the platform configuration must be *discovered* instead of >> > > statically compiled as it is today in TF-A via device tree based >> > > enumeration. The mechanisms of discovery may differ broadly depending on >> > > the relevant industry standard, or in some cases may have rely on SiP >> > > specific discovery flows. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > For example: On server systems that support a broad range DIMM memory >> > > population/topologies, all the necessary information required to boot is >> > > fully discovered via standard JEDEC Serial Presence Detect (SPD) over an >> > > I2C bus. Leveraging the SPD bus, may platform variants could be supported >> > > with a single TF-A binary. Not only is this information required to >> > > initialize memory in early boot phases (e.g. BL2), the subsequent boot >> > > phases will also need this SPD info to construct a system physical address >> > > map and properly initialize the MMU based on the memory present, and where >> > > the memory may be present. Subsequent boot phases (e.g. BL33 / UEFI) may >> > > need to generate standard firmware tables to the operating systems, such as >> > > SMBIOS tables describing DIMM topology and various ACPI tables (e.g. SLIT, >> > > SRAT, even NFIT if NVDIMM's are present). >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > In short, it all starts with a standardized or vendor specific discovery >> > > flow in an early boot stage (e.g. BL1/BL2), followed by the passing of >> > > information to the next boot stages (e.g. BL31/BL32/BL33). >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Today, every HOB may be a vendor specific structure, but in the future >> > > there may be benefit of defining standard HOBs. This may be useful for >> > > memory discovery, passing the system physical address map, enabling TPM >> > > measured boot, and potentially many other common HOB use-cases. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > It would be extremely beneficial to the datacenter market segment if the >> > > TF-A community would adopt this concept of information passing between all >> > > boot phases as opposed to rely solely on device tree enumeration. This is >> > > not intended to replace device tree, rather intended as an alternative way >> > > to describe the info that must be discovered and dynamically generated. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Conclusion: >> > > >> > > ----------- >> > > >> > > We are proposing that the TF-A community begin pursuing the adoption of >> > > HOBs as a mechanism used for information exchange between each boot stage >> > > (e.g. BL1->BL2, BL2->BL31, BL31->BL32, and BL31->BL33)? Longer term we >> > > want to explore standardizing some HOB structures for the BL33 phase (e.g. >> > > UEFI HOB structures), but initially would like to agree on this being a >> > > useful mechanism used to pass information between each boot stage. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > --Harb >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > TF-A mailing list >> > > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org >> > > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* >> > T: +33.67221.6485 >> > francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog >> > _______________________________________________ >> > boot-architecture mailing list >> > boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org >> > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> François-Frédéric Ozog | Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group >> >> T: +33.67221.6485 >> francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog >> >> >> >> -- >> TF-A mailing list >> TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org >> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> François-Frédéric Ozog | Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group >> >> T: +33.67221.6485 >> francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog >> >> >> >> -- >> TF-A mailing list >> TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org >> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a >> >> -- >> TF-A mailing list >> TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org >> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> François-Frédéric Ozog | Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group >> >> T: +33.67221.6485 >> francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog >> >> > > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a

3 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] MEM_PROTECT for secure world?

by raghu.ncstate＠icloud.com

If I understand the cold boot attack correctly for the normal world, it is that we boot a NWd OS once, make it decrypt all its secrets into DRAM, pull the power and quickly boot to another OS and read contents of DRAM before the data decays, to extract secrets of the old OS using the new OS. While this can apply to secure world, It might be a safe assumption that we cannot boot arbitrary, unsigned TZ code and trusted OS's on an ARM system in the last few years due to use of CoT, Rollback protection etc. As a general rule of thumb, early boot code should probably be scrubbing secure DRAM anyway, I think, to prevent this attack, in which case the way to do the cold boot attack would be through a run time attack on TZ code. Thanks Raghu -----Original Message----- From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Okash Khawaja via TF-A Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:10 AM To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-A] MEM_PROTECT for secure world? Hi, As a PSCI call, MEM_PROTECT which is used to protect against cold reboot attack, can't be called from TZ-secure. In a situation where at run time, HLOS in NS-EL1 transfers some buffer that it owns, to a secure partition then secure partition can't call MEM_PROTECT because psci_smc_handler will return SMC_UNK if the caller is secure. Should MEM_PROTECT be available to TZ-secure as well? Thanks, Okash -- TF-A mailing list TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a

3 years, 3 months

2
5
0 0

Re: [TF-A] Stack Protector for platforms not implementing plat_get_stack_protector_canary

by raghu.ncstate＠icloud.com

Adding tf-a list again. -----Original Message----- From: raghu.ncstate(a)icloud.com <raghu.ncstate(a)icloud.com> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 9:33 AM To: 'Heiko Thiery' <heiko.thiery(a)gmail.com>; 'tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: RE: [TF-A] Stack Protector for platforms not implementing plat_get_stack_protector_canary Right. The point I was trying to make is the same as the comment in the C file says "this is better than nothing but not necessarily really secure". I'm just saying SSP without truly random stack canary in an open source project is as good as not having SSP 😊 >From an TF-A point of view, I think we want to encourage folks to include TRNG's on their platform and we should not provide an insecure default implementation, since people may assume security properties about it if they don’t look closely enough. Thanks Raghu -----Original Message----- From: Heiko Thiery <heiko.thiery(a)gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 8:57 AM To: raghu.ncstate(a)icloud.com; tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-A] Stack Protector for platforms not implementing plat_get_stack_protector_canary Hi, Am Do., 13. Mai 2021 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb <raghu.ncstate(a)icloud.com>: > > Without a RNG, implementing a generic function as you have mentioned below would mean returning a constant value or random numbers that are not cryptographically secure for the stack canary. Neither of those options will really provide any security benefit. In absence of a TRNG or secret seed that can be used to generate secure random numbers, I think turning off SSP is not that much worse than returning bad values. But as you can read in the comments of some implementations, it is better to return a pseudo value than none at all. Or am I wrong there? And assuming that this is true, it would be good to have an implementation for all those who don't use TRNG like the ones at https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a.git/tree/plat/rockc…. > > A quick google search tells me that imx8m may have a random number generator so the platform code may need to hook up tf-a platform port to the random number. > > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Heiko > Thiery via TF-A > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 12:34 AM > To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Subject: [TF-A] Stack Protector for platforms not implementing > plat_get_stack_protector_canary > > Hi all, > > I recently encountered a build issue with the imx8m platform. > Buildroot will set the SSP (Stack Smashing Protection) option to on by > default in the next release. This option also turns on the > ENABLE_STACK_PROTECTOR in the ATF. But since the > plat_get_stack_protector_canary() function is not implemented for the > imx8m for example, the build fails for this platform. My question now > is: could you implement a generic function like it is implemented for some platforms that don't have a real RNG? Or is there a concern here? > > I must admit that I have no experience with ATF other than building and deploying it. > > Thanks > -- > Heiko > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a > Thanks -- Heiko

3 years, 3 months

2
3
0 0

Re: [TF-A] Lost gerrit email notifications

by Joanna Farley

Hi Raghu, That’s should have been corrected as there was a fault on trustedfirmware.org servers which was fixed overnight as I was also missing notifications but they have started to come through now. Joanna From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Raghu Krishnamurthy via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Reply to: "raghu.ncstate(a)icloud.com" <raghu.ncstate(a)icloud.com> Date: Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 15:47 To: "tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-A] Lost gerrit email notifications Hi All, I seem to have lost email notification of comments on gerrit reviews. I’ve checked my gerrit settings and reset the settings to enable notifications but I cant seem to get notifications from gerrit. Is this something others are seeing as well? Thanks Raghu

3 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Lost gerrit email notifications

by raghu.ncstate＠icloud.com

Hi All, I seem to have lost email notification of comments on gerrit reviews. I've checked my gerrit settings and reset the settings to enable notifications but I cant seem to get notifications from gerrit. Is this something others are seeing as well? Thanks Raghu

3 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Stack Protector for platforms not implementing plat_get_stack_protector_canary

by Heiko Thiery

Hi all, I recently encountered a build issue with the imx8m platform. Buildroot will set the SSP (Stack Smashing Protection) option to on by default in the next release. This option also turns on the ENABLE_STACK_PROTECTOR in the ATF. But since the plat_get_stack_protector_canary() function is not implemented for the imx8m for example, the build fails for this platform. My question now is: could you implement a generic function like it is implemented for some platforms that don't have a real RNG? Or is there a concern here? I must admit that I have no experience with ATF other than building and deploying it. Thanks -- Heiko

3 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] Proposal: TF-A to adopt hand-off blocks (HOBs) for information passing between boot stages

by François Ozog

Hi here is the meeting recording: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/rec/share/zjfHeMIumkJhirLCVQYTHR6ftaqyWvF_0klgQn… Passcode: IPn+5q%z I am really sorry about the confusion related to the meeting time. I have now understood: the Collaborate portal uses a specific calendar which is tied to US/Chicago timezone while the actual Google Calendar is tied to Central Europe timezone. I am going to drop the Collaborate portal and use a shared Google calendar (it should be visible on the trusted-substrate.org page). I'll try to summarize what I learnt and highlight my view on what can be next steps in a future mail. Cheers FF On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 13:56, Manish Pandey2 via TF-A < tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > Hi, > > From TF-A project point of view, we prefer to use existing mechanism to > pass parameters across boot stages using linked list of tagged elements (as > suggested by Julius). It has support for both generic and SiP-specific > tags. Having said that, it does not stop partners to introduce new > mechanisms suitable for their usecase in platform port initially and later > move to generic code if its suitable for other platforms. > > To start with, Ampere can introduce a platform specific implementation of > memory tag(speed/NUMA topology etc) which can be evaluated and discussed > for generalization in future. The tag will be populated in BL2 stage and > can be forwarded to further stages(and to BL33) by passing the head of list > pointer in one of the registers. Initially any register can be used but > going forward a standardization will be needed. > > The U-boot bloblist mentioned by Simon is conceptually similar to what > TF-A is using, if there is consensus of using bloblist/taglist then TF-A > tag list may be enhanced to take best of both the implementations. > > One of the potential problems of having structure used in different > projects is maintainability, this can be avoided by having a single copy of > these structures in TF-A (kept inside "include/export" which intended to be > used by other projects.) > > Regarding usage of either UUID or tag, I echo the sentiments of Simon and > Julius to keep it simple and use tag values. > > Looking forward to having further discussions on zoom call today. > > Thanks > Manish P > > ------------------------------ > *From:* TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Julius > Werner via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> > *Sent:* 25 March 2021 02:43 > *To:* Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org> > *Cc:* Harb Abdulhamid OS <abdulhamid(a)os.amperecomputing.com>; Boot > Architecture Mailman List <boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org>; > tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>; U-Boot > Mailing List <u-boot(a)lists.denx.de>; Paul Isaac's <paul.isaacs(a)linaro.org>; > Ron Minnich <rminnich(a)google.com> > *Subject:* Re: [TF-A] Proposal: TF-A to adopt hand-off blocks (HOBs) for > information passing between boot stages > > Just want to point out that TF-A currently already supports a (very > simple) mechanism like this: > > > https://review.trustedfirmware.org/plugins/gitiles/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/… > > https://review.trustedfirmware.org/plugins/gitiles/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/… > > https://review.trustedfirmware.org/plugins/gitiles/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/… > > It's just a linked list of tagged elements. The tag space is split into > TF-A-wide generic tags and SiP-specific tags (with plenty of room to spare > if more areas need to be defined -- a 64-bit tag can fit a lot). This is > currently being used by some platforms that run coreboot in place of > BL1/BL2, to pass information from coreboot (BL2) to BL31. > > I would echo Simon's sentiment of keeping this as simple as possible and > avoiding complicated and bloated data structures with UUIDs. You usually > want to parse something like this as early as possible in the passed-to > firmware stage, particularly if the structure encodes information about the > debug console (like it does for the platforms I mentioned above). For > example, in BL31 this basically means doing it right after moving from > assembly to C in bl31_early_platform_setup2() to get the console up before > running anything else. At that point in the BL31 initialization, the MMU > and caches are disabled, so data accesses are pretty expensive and you > don't want to spend a lot of parsing effort or calculate complicated > checksums or the like. You just want something extremely simple where you > ideally have to touch every data word only once. > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 5:06 PM Simon Glass via TF-A < > tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > Hi Harb, > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 at 11:39, Harb Abdulhamid OS < > abdulhamid(a)os.amperecomputing.com> wrote: > > Hello Folks, > > Appreciate the feedback and replies on this. Glad to see that there is > interest in this topic. 😊 > > > > I try to address the comments/feedback from Francois and Simon below…. > > > > @François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org> – happy to discuss this on a > zoom call. I will make that time slot work, and will be available to > attend April 8, 4pm CT. > > > > Note that I’m using the term “HOB” here more generically, as there are > typically vendor specific structures beyond the resource descriptor HOB, > which provides only a small subset of the information that needs to be > passed between the boot phases. > > > > The whole point here is to provide mechanism to develop firmware that we > can build ARM Server SoC’s that support **any** BL33 payload (e.g. EDK2, > AptioV, CoreBoot, and maybe even directly boot strapping LinuxBoot at some > point). In other-words, we are trying to come up with a TF-A that would > be completely agnostic to the implementation of BL33 (i.e. BL33 is built > completely independently by a separate entity – e.g. an ODM/OEM). > > > > Keep in mind, in the server/datacenter market segment we are not building > vertically integrated systems with a single entity compiling > firmware/software stacks like most folks in TF-A have become use to. There > are two categories of higher level firmware code blobs in the > server/datacenter model: > > 1. “SoC” or “silicon” firmware – in TF-A this may map to BL1, BL2, > BL31, and **possibly** one or more BL32 instances > 2. “Platform” or “board” firmware – in TF-A this may map to BL33 and * > *possibly** one or more BL32 instances. > > > > Even the platform firmware stack could be further fragmented by having > multiple entities involved in delivering the entire firmware stack: IBVs, > ODMs, OEMs, CSPs, and possibly even device vendor code. > > > > To support a broad range of platform designs with a broad range of memory > devices, we need a crisp and clear contract between the SoC firmware that > initializes memory (e.g. BL2) and how that platform boot firmware (e.g. > BL33) gathers information about what memory that was initialized, at what > speeds, NUMA topology, and many other relevant information that needs to be > known and comprehended by the platform firmware and eventually by the > platform software. > > > > I understand the versatility of DT, but I see two major problems with DT: > > - DT requires more complicated parsing to get properties, and even > more complex to dynamically set properties – this HOB structures may need > to be generated in boot phases where DDR is not available, and therefore we > will be extremely memory constrained. > - DT is probably overkill for this purpose – We really just want a > list of pointers to simple C structures that code cast (e.g. JEDEC SPD data > blob) > > > > I think that we should not mix the efforts around DT/ACPI specs with what > we are doing here, because those specs and concepts were developed for a > completely different purpose (i.e. abstractions needed for OS / RTOS > software, and not necessarily suitable for firmware-to-firmware hand-offs). > > > > Frankly, I would personally push back pretty hard on defining SMC’s for > something that should be one way information passing. Every SMC we add is > another attack vector to the secure world and an increased burden on the > folks that have to do security auditing and threat analysis. I see no > benefit in exposing these boot/HOB/BOB structures at run-time via SMC > calls. > > > > Please do let me know if you disagree and why. Look forward to discussing > on this thread or on the call. > > > > @Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org> - Thanks for the pointer to bloblist. > I briefly reviewed and it seems like a good baseline for what we may be > looking for. > > > > That being said, I would say that there is some benefit in having some > kind of unique identifiers (e.g. UUID or some unique signature) so that we > can tie standardized data structures (based on some future TBD specs) to a > particular ID. For example, if the TPM driver in BL33 is looking for the > TPM structure in the HOB/BOB list, and may not care about the other data > blobs. The driver needs a way to identify and locate the blob it cares > about. > > > The tag is intended to serve that purpose, although perhaps it should > switch from an auto-allocating enum to one with explicit values for each > entry and a range for 'local' use. > > > > I guess we can achieve this with the tag, but the problem with tag when > you have eco-system with a lot of parties doing parallel development, you > can end up with tag collisions and folks fighting about who has rights to > what tag values. We would need some official process for folks to register > tags for whatever new structures we define, or maybe some tag range for > vendor specific structures. This comes with a lot of pain and > bureaucracy. On the other hand, UUID has been a proven way to make it easy > to just define your own blobs with **either** standard or vendor specific > structures without worry of ID collisions between vendors. > > > True. I think the pain is overstated, though. In this case I think we > actually want something that can be shared between projects and orgs, so > some amount of coordination could be considered a benefit. It could just be > a github pull request. I find the UUID unfriendly and not just to code size > and eyesight! Trying to discover what GUIDs mean or are valid is quite > tricky. E.g. see this code: > > #define FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_TSEG_GUID \ > EFI_GUID(0xd038747c, 0xd00c, 0x4980, \ > 0xb3, 0x19, 0x49, 0x01, 0x99, 0xa4, 0x7d, 0x55) > (etc.) > > static struct guid_name { > efi_guid_t guid; > const char *name; > } guid_name[] = { > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_TSEG_GUID, "TSEG" }, > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_FSP_GUID, "FSP" }, > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_SMM_PEI_SMRAM_GUID, "SMM PEI SMRAM" }, > { FSP_NON_VOLATILE_STORAGE_HOB_GUID, "NVS" }, > { FSP_VARIABLE_NV_DATA_HOB_GUID, "Variable NVS" }, > { FSP_GRAPHICS_INFO_HOB_GUID, "Graphics info" }, > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_PCD_DATABASE_GUID1, "PCD database ea" }, > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_PCD_DATABASE_GUID2, "PCD database 9b" }, > (never figured out what those two are) > > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_PEIM_DXE_GUID, "PEIM Init DXE" }, > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_ALLOC_STACK_GUID, "Alloc stack" }, > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_SMBIOS_MEMORY_GUID, "SMBIOS memory" }, > { {}, "zero-guid" }, > {} > }; > > static const char *guid_to_name(const efi_guid_t *guid) > { > struct guid_name *entry; > > for (entry = guid_name; entry->name; entry++) { > if (!guidcmp(guid, &entry->guid)) > return entry->name; > } > > return NULL; > } > > Believe it or not it took a fair bit of effort to find just that small > list, with nearly every one in a separate doc, from memory. > > > > We can probably debate whether there is any value in GUID/UUID or not > during the call… but again, boblist seems like a reasonable starting point > as an alternative to HOB. > > > Indeed. There is certainly value in both approaches. > > Regards, > Simon > > > > > Thanks, > > --Harb > > > > *From:* François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:00 AM > *To:* François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org>; Ron Minnich < > rminnich(a)google.com>; Paul Isaac's <paul.isaacs(a)linaro.org> > *Cc:* Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org>; Harb Abdulhamid OS < > abdulhamid(a)os.amperecomputing.com>; Boot Architecture Mailman List < > boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org>; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > *Subject:* Re: [TF-A] Proposal: TF-A to adopt hand-off blocks (HOBs) for > information passing between boot stages > > > > +Ron Minnich <rminnich(a)google.com> +Paul Isaac's <paul.isaacs(a)linaro.org> > > > > Adding Ron and Paul because I think this interface should be also > benefiting LinuxBoot efforts. > > > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 11:17, François Ozog via TF-A < > tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I propose we cover the topic at the next Trusted Substrate > <https://collaborate.linaro.org/display/TS/Trusted+Substrate+Home> zoom > call <https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/94563644892> on April 8th 4pm CET. > > > > The agenda: > > ABI between non-secure firmware and the rest of firmware (EL3, S-EL1, > S-EL2, SCP) to adapt hardware description to some runtime conditions. > > runtime conditions here relates to DRAM size and topology detection, > secure DRAM memory carvings, PSCI and SCMI interface publishing. > > > > For additional background on existing metadata: UEFI Platform > Initialization Specification Version 1.7 > <https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/PI_Spec_1_7_final_Jan_2019.p…> > , 5.5 Resource Descriptor HOB > > Out of the ResourceType we care about is EFI_RESOURCE_SYSTEM_MEMORY. > > This HOB lacks memory NUMA attachment or something that could be related > to fill SRAT table for ACPI or relevant DT proximity domains. > > HOB is not consistent accros platforms: some platforms (Arm) lists memory > from the booting NUMA node, other platforms (x86) lists all memory from all > NUMA nodes. (At least this is the case on the two platforms I tested). > > > > There are two proposals to use memory structures from SPL/BLx up to the > handover function (as defined in the Device Tree technical report > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CLkhLRaz_zcCq44DLGmPZQFPbYHOC6nzPowaL0X…>) > which can be U-boot (BL33 or just U-Boot in case of SPL/U-Boot scheme) or > EDK2. > > I would propose we also discuss possibility of FF-A interface to actually > query information or request actions to be done (this is a model actually > used in some SoCs with proprietary SMC calls). > > > > Requirements (to be validated): > > - ACPI and DT hardware descriptions. > > - agnostic to boot framework (SPL/U-Boot, TF-A/U-Boot, TF-A/EDK2) > > - agnostic to boot framework (SPL/U-Boot, TF-A/U-Boot, TF-A/EDK2, > TF-A/LinuxBoot) > > - at least allows complete DRAM description and "persistent" usage > (reserved areas for secure world or other usages) > > - support secure world device assignment > > > > Cheers > > > > FF > > > > > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 19:56, Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Can I suggest using bloblist for this instead? It is lightweight, > easier to parse, doesn't have GUIDs and is already used within U-Boot > for passing info between SPL/U-Boot, etc. > > Docs here: > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/doc/README.bloblist > Header file describes the format: > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/include/bloblist.h > > Full set of unit tests: > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/test/bloblist.c > > Regards, > Simon > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 23:58, François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > +Boot Architecture Mailman List <boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org> > > > > standardization is very much welcomed here and need to accommodate a very > > diverse set of situations. > > For example, TEE OS may need to pass memory reservations to BL33 or > > "capture" a device for the secure world. > > > > I have observed a number of architectures: > > 1) pass information from BLx to BLy in the form of a specific object > > 2) BLx called by BLy by a platform specific SMC to get information > > 3) BLx called by BLy by a platform specific SMC to perform Device Tree > > fixups > > > > I also imagined a standardized "broadcast" FF-A call so that any firmware > > element can either provide information or "do something". > > > > My understanding of your proposal is about standardizing on architecture > 1) > > with the HOB format. > > > > The advantage of the HOB is simplicity but it may be difficult to > implement > > schemes such as pruning a DT because device assignment in the secure > world. > > > > In any case, it looks feasible to have TF-A and OP-TEE complement the > list > > of HOBs to pass information downstream (the bootflow). > > > > It would be good to start with building the comprehensive list of > > information that need to be conveyed between firmware elements: > > > > information. | authoritative entity | reporting entity | information > > exchanged: > > dram | TFA | TFA | > > <format to be detailed, NUMA topology to build the SRAT table or DT > > equivalent?> > > PSCI | SCP | TFA? | > > SCMI | SCP or TEE-OS | TFA? TEE-OS?| > > secure SRAM | TFA. | TFA. | > > secure DRAM | TFA? TEE-OS? | TFA? TEE-OS? | > > other? | | > > | > > > > Cheers > > > > FF > > > > > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 09:34, Harb Abdulhamid OS via TF-A < > > tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > > > > Hello Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm emailing to start an open discussion about the adoption of a > concept > > > known as "hand-off blocks" or HOB to become a part of the TF-A Firmware > > > Framework Architecture (FFA). This is something that is a pretty major > > > pain point when it comes to the adoption of TF-A in ARM Server SoC’s > > > designed to enable a broad range of highly configurable datacenter > > > platforms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is a HOB (Background)? > > > > > > --------------------------- > > > > > > UEFI PI spec describes a particular definition for how HOB may be used > for > > > transitioning between the PEI and DXE boot phases, which is a good > > > reference point for this discussion, but not necessarily the exact > solution > > > appropriate for TF-A. > > > > > > > > > > > > A HOB is simply a dynamically generated data structure passed in > between > > > two boot phases. This is information that was obtained through > discovery > > > and needs to be passed forward to the next boot phase *once*, with no > API > > > needed to call back (e.g. no call back into previous firmware phase is > > > needed to fetch this information at run-time - it is simply passed one > time > > > during boot). > > > > > > > > > > > > There may be one or more HOBs passed in between boot phases. If there > are > > > more than one HOB that needs to be passed, this can be in a form of a > "HOB > > > table", which (for example) could be a UUID indexed array of pointers > to > > > HOB structures, used to locate a HOB of interest (based on UUID). In > such > > > cases, instead of passing a single HOB, the boot phases may rely on > passing > > > the pointer to the HOB table. > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been extremely useful concept to employ on highly configurable > > > systems that must rely on flexible discovery mechanisms to initialize > and > > > boot the system. This is especially helpful when you have multiple > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do we need HOBs in TF-A?: > > > > > > ----------------------------- > > > > > > It is desirable that EL3 firmware (e.g. TF-A) built for ARM Server SoC > in > > > a way that is SoC specific *but* platform agnostic. This means that a > > > single ARM SoC that a SiP may deliver to customers may provide a single > > > TF-A binary (e.g. BL1, BL2, BL31) that could be used to support a broad > > > range of platform designs and configurations in order to boot a > platform > > > specific firmware (e.g. BL33 and possibly even BL32 code). In order to > > > achieve this, the platform configuration must be *discovered* instead > of > > > statically compiled as it is today in TF-A via device tree based > > > enumeration. The mechanisms of discovery may differ broadly depending > on > > > the relevant industry standard, or in some cases may have rely on SiP > > > specific discovery flows. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: On server systems that support a broad range DIMM memory > > > population/topologies, all the necessary information required to boot > is > > > fully discovered via standard JEDEC Serial Presence Detect (SPD) over > an > > > I2C bus. Leveraging the SPD bus, may platform variants could be > supported > > > with a single TF-A binary. Not only is this information required to > > > initialize memory in early boot phases (e.g. BL2), the subsequent boot > > > phases will also need this SPD info to construct a system physical > address > > > map and properly initialize the MMU based on the memory present, and > where > > > the memory may be present. Subsequent boot phases (e.g. BL33 / UEFI) > may > > > need to generate standard firmware tables to the operating systems, > such as > > > SMBIOS tables describing DIMM topology and various ACPI tables (e.g. > SLIT, > > > SRAT, even NFIT if NVDIMM's are present). > > > > > > > > > > > > In short, it all starts with a standardized or vendor specific > discovery > > > flow in an early boot stage (e.g. BL1/BL2), followed by the passing of > > > information to the next boot stages (e.g. BL31/BL32/BL33). > > > > > > > > > > > > Today, every HOB may be a vendor specific structure, but in the future > > > there may be benefit of defining standard HOBs. This may be useful for > > > memory discovery, passing the system physical address map, enabling TPM > > > measured boot, and potentially many other common HOB use-cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be extremely beneficial to the datacenter market segment if > the > > > TF-A community would adopt this concept of information passing between > all > > > boot phases as opposed to rely solely on device tree enumeration. > This is > > > not intended to replace device tree, rather intended as an alternative > way > > > to describe the info that must be discovered and dynamically generated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conclusion: > > > > > > ----------- > > > > > > We are proposing that the TF-A community begin pursuing the adoption of > > > HOBs as a mechanism used for information exchange between each boot > stage > > > (e.g. BL1->BL2, BL2->BL31, BL31->BL32, and BL31->BL33)? Longer term we > > > want to explore standardizing some HOB structures for the BL33 phase > (e.g. > > > UEFI HOB structures), but initially would like to agree on this being a > > > useful mechanism used to pass information between each boot stage. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --Harb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > TF-A mailing list > > > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > > > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a > > > > > > > > > -- > > François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* > > T: +33.67221.6485 > > francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog > > _______________________________________________ > > boot-architecture mailing list > > boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org > > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture > > > > > -- > > *François-Frédéric Ozog* | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* > > T: +33.67221.6485 > francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog > > > > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a > > > > > -- > > *François-Frédéric Ozog* | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* > > T: +33.67221.6485 > francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog > > > > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a > > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a > -- François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* T: +33.67221.6485 francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog

3 years, 4 months

4
3
0 0

Rockchip rk3399 build broken with gcc11

by Olivier Deprez

Hi Rockchip platform maintainers, There's a build issue spotted with GCC11 on rk3399 platform reported here using tip of master: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T925 The issue is not breaking the build with earlier gcc versions, but we think the error is legitimate and caused by a mistake in the platform code. Details in the ticket. Any chance for you to have a look? Thanks, Olivier.

3 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

MEM_PROTECT for secure world?

by Okash Khawaja

Hi, As a PSCI call, MEM_PROTECT which is used to protect against cold reboot attack, can't be called from TZ-secure. In a situation where at run time, HLOS in NS-EL1 transfers some buffer that it owns, to a secure partition then secure partition can't call MEM_PROTECT because psci_smc_handler will return SMC_UNK if the caller is secure. Should MEM_PROTECT be available to TZ-secure as well? Thanks, Okash

3 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-A May 2021