July 2022 - TF-A - lists.trustedfirmware.org

[RFC] Proposed location to host the firmware handoff specification.

by Jose Marinho

Hi, Arm worked to draft a firmware handoff [1] specification, evolving it based on community feedback. This activity followed the request of some members of the Arm ecosystem [2]. The spec (still at ALP – feedback/comments welcome!) standardizes how information is propagated between different firmware components during boot. The spec hopes to remove the reliance on bespoke/platform-specific information handoff mechanisms, thus reducing the code maintenance burden. The concept of entry types is present in the spec – these are data structure layouts that carry a specific type of data. New types are meant to be added, following the needs and use-cases of the different communities. Thus, these communities should be empowered to request new types! To enable community contributions, the specification must be hosted in a location that is friendly to change requests. We propose to host the spec in trustedfirmware.org (tf.org). Tf.org hosts several open-source projects and already has an open governance model. TF-A, and the associated community, rely on tf.org, and thus are already well equipped to maintain this specification and keep it up to date. Tf.org is agnostic of any downstream projects that would adopt this specification (e.g. U-boot, EDK2, etc.). We welcome the views of the communities and want to understand if there are any strong objections to what’s being proposed! If anyone has objections, we are happy to consider alternatives and associated trade-offs. Regards [1] https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0135/latest [2] Re: [TF-A] Proposal: TF-A to adopt hand-off blocks (HOBs) for information passing between boot stages - TF-A - lists.trustedfirmware.org<https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/archives/list/tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.…>

11 months, 3 weeks

10
32
1 0

About kdump hang issue in SDEI dispatch

by Ming Huang

Hi James & TF-A guys, When hest acpi table configure Hardware Error Notification type as Software Delegated Exception(0x0B) for RAS event, kernel RAS interacts with TF-A by SDEI mechanism. On the firmware first system, kernel was notified by TF-A sdei call. The calling flow like as below when fatal RAS error happens: TF-A notify kernel flow: sdei_dispatch_event() ehf_activate_priority() call sdei callback // callback registered by kerenl ehf_deactivate_priority() Kernel sdei callback: sdei_asm_handler() __sdei_handler() _sdei_handler() sdei_event_handler() ghes_sdei_critical_callback() ghes_in_nmi_queue_one_entry() /* if RAS error is fatal */ __ghes_panic() panic() If fatal RAS error occured, panic was called in sdei_asm_handle() without ehf_deactivate_priority executed, which lead interrupt masked. If interrupt masked, system would be halted in kdump flow like this: arm-smmu-v3 arm-smmu-v3.3.auto: allocated 65536 entries for cmdq arm-smmu-v3 arm-smmu-v3.3.auto: allocated 32768 entries for evtq arm-smmu-v3 arm-smmu-v3.3.auto: allocated 65536 entries for priq arm-smmu-v3 arm-smmu-v3.3.auto: SMMU currently enabled! Resetting... So interrupt should be restored before panic otherwise kdump will hang. In the process of sdei, a SDEI_EVENT_COMPLETE(or SDEI_EVENT_COMPLETE_AND_RESUME) call should be called before panic for a completed run of ehf_deactivate_priority(). The ehf_deactivate_priority() function restore pmr_el1 to original value(>0x80). The SDEI dispatch flow was broken if SDEI_EVENT_COMPLETE was not be called. This will bring about two issue: 1 Kdump will hang for firmware reporting fatal RAS event by SDEI; (as explain above) 2 For NMI scene，TF-A enable a secure timer, the PPI 29 will trigger periodically. Kernel register a callback for hard lockup. The below code will not be called when panic in kernel callback: TF-A, services/std_svc/sdei/sdei_intr_mgmt.c sdei_intr_handler(): /* * We reach here when client completes the event. * * If the cause of dispatch originally interrupted the Secure world, * resume Secure. * * No need to save the Non-secure context ahead of a world switch: the * Non-secure context was fully saved before dispatch, and has been * returned to its pre-dispatch state. */ if (sec_state == SECURE) restore_and_resume_secure_context(); /* * The event was dispatched after receiving SDEI interrupt. With * the event handling completed, EOI the corresponding * interrupt. */ if ((map->ev_num != SDEI_EVENT_0) && !is_map_bound(map)) { ERROR("Invalid SDEI mapping: ev=%u\n", map->ev_num); panic(); } plat_ic_end_of_interrupt(intr_raw); How to fix above issues? I think the root cause is that kernel broken the SDEI dispatch flow, so kernel should modify to fix these issues. Thanks, Ming

1 year, 1 month

4
10
0 0

Runtime loading of SEL-1

by Jeffrey Kardatzke

Hello, I'm working on a project for ChromeOS where we would like to be able to load the BL32 payload (OpTee) for SEL-1 after the linux kernel has booted rather than during the usual BL32 stage. We would do this via an SMC we would add which would take the OpTee image from linux and then have EL3 load it and perform the init for SEL-1 at that time. The reasoning behind this is that it's much easier to update the rootfs than the FW on our devices, and we can still ensure the integrity of the OpTee image if we load it early enough after the kernel boots. The main questions I have are if there are any issues people would be aware of by loading it after linux boots rather than during the usual BL32 stage? And I would definitely want to upstream this work if it's something we can do. Thanks, Jeffrey Kardatzke Google, Inc.

1 year, 3 months

7
14
1 0

[PATCH TF-A] fix(plat/rcar3): Fix RPC-IF device node name

by Geert Uytterhoeven

According to the Generic Names Recommendation in the Devicetree Specification Release v0.3, and the DT Bindings for the Renesas Reduced Pin Count Interface, the node name for a Renesas RPC-IF device should be "spi". The node name matters, as the node is enabled by passing a DT fragment from TF-A to subsequent software. Fix this by renaming the device nodes from "rpc" to "spi". Fixes: 12c75c8886a0ee69 ("feat(plat/rcar3): emit RPC status to DT fragment if RPC unlocked") Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas(a)glider.be> --- Background: On Renesas R-Car Gen3 platforms, the SPI Multi I/O Bus Controllers (RPC-IF) provide access to HyperFlash or QSPI storage. On production systems, they are typically locked by the TF-A firmware, unless TF-A is built with RCAR_RPC_HYPERFLASH_LOCKED=0. When unlocked, TF-A communicates this to subsequent software by passing a DT fragment that sets the "status" property of the RPC-IF device node to "okay". Unfortunately there are several issues preventing this from working all the way to Linux: 1. TF-A (and U-Boot on the receiving side) uses a device node name that does not conform to the DT specification nor the DT bindings for RPC-IF, 2. While U-Boot receives the RPC-IF enablement from TF-A, it does not propagate it to Linux yet, 3. The DTS files that are part of Linux do not have RPC HyperFlash support yet. This patch takes care of the first issue in TF-A. The related patches for U-Boot are [1]. Patches to enable RPC-IF support in Linux are available at [2]. Thanks for your comments! [1] "[PATCH u-boot 0/3] renesas: Fix RPC-IF enablement" https://lore.kernel.org/r/cover.1648544792.git.geert+renesas@glider.be [2] "[PATCH 0/5] arm64: dts: renesas: rcar-gen3: Enable HyperFlash support" https://lore.kernel.org/r/cover.1648548339.git.geert+renesas@glider.be --- plat/renesas/rcar/bl2_plat_setup.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/plat/renesas/rcar/bl2_plat_setup.c b/plat/renesas/rcar/bl2_plat_setup.c index bbfa16927d6c2384..f85db8d650c6b1a5 100644 --- a/plat/renesas/rcar/bl2_plat_setup.c +++ b/plat/renesas/rcar/bl2_plat_setup.c @@ -574,7 +574,7 @@ static void bl2_add_rpc_node(void) goto err; } - node = ret = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, node, "rpc@ee200000"); + node = ret = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, node, "spi@ee200000"); if (ret < 0) { goto err; } -- 2.25.1

1 year, 6 months

3
7
1 0

A problem about TZASC in Armv9

by Chenxu Wang

Greetings, Armv9 introduces the RME and GPT technology. The GPT will separates the memory into unlimited regions with specific attributes. However, when I read the Armv9 manual and source code of TF-A, I still have some problems: 1. It seems that GPT is a feature on CPU, but not on a specific device (e.g.,TZC-400). Thus, will GPT conflict with TZC-400? I mean, when performing VA->PA on RAM, what is the detailed process if I enable both GPT and TZC-400? 2. I use the Arm FVP with Armv9 and RME extension enabled, and TF-A is "arm_cca" branch (with TF-A v2.5). Thus, in this version, what is the configuration for TZC-400 and GPT? Will it disable TZC-400 (I mean, GPT only) when booting Normal World? 3. Does GPT handle peripheral access (e.g., from DMA, GPU, Sensors... etc.)? I know TZC-400 will do it with NSAID. 4. Will GPT configures Read/Write/Execute features? All comments are valuable! SIncerely, WANG Chenxu

1 year, 8 months

3
7
0 0

TF-A TechForum 19th May Cancelled

by Bipin Ravi

All, This is to inform you all that the TF-A Techforum for Thursday, 19th May 2022 is cancelled as we didn't receive any topic for this week. The next meeting will now be Thursday, 2nd June 2022 at 16:00 - 17:00 BST. Thanks, Bipin Ravi

1 year, 9 months

1
1
0 0

Re: Question about disable MMU in BL1

by 邬金平

Hi, I have tried this before, there is a problem. on Armv8, when MMU disabled, the default attribute of memory is device, and device memory access has alignment requirements. For example, accessing address (0x1) will result in fault. Ben via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> 于2022年7月19日周二 17:02写道： > Hello, > > To decrease feature in BL1, I plan to disable MMU in BL1 stage. > Are there any potential issues besides performance issues? > > BRs > > ------------------------------ > Ben(a)tsingmicro.com > -- > TF-A mailing list -- tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tf-a-leave(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org >

1 year, 9 months

1
0
0 0

New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware

by scan-admin＠coverity.com

Hi, Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan. 1 new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan. New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan Showing 1 of 1 defect(s) ** CID 379362: Memory - illegal accesses (OVERRUN) /lib/psci/psci_common.c: 1046 in psci_is_last_on_cpu_safe() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 379362: Memory - illegal accesses (OVERRUN) /lib/psci/psci_common.c: 1046 in psci_is_last_on_cpu_safe() 1040 unsigned int i = 0; 1041 1042 /* 1043 * Traverse the forest of PSCI nodes, nodes with no parents 1044 * (invalid-nodes) are the root nodes. 1045 */ >>> CID 379362: Memory - illegal accesses (OVERRUN) >>> Overrunning array "psci_non_cpu_pd_nodes" of 5 16-byte elements at element index 5 (byte offset 95) using index "i" (which evaluates to 5). 1046 while ((psci_non_cpu_pd_nodes[i].parent_node == 1047 PSCI_PARENT_NODE_INVALID) && 1048 (i < PSCI_NUM_NON_CPU_PWR_DOMAINS)) { 1049 psci_get_parent_pwr_domain_nodes( 1050 psci_non_cpu_pd_nodes[i].cpu_start_idx, 1051 PLAT_MAX_PWR_LVL, parent_nodes); ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P…

1 year, 9 months

1
0
0 0

Question about disable MMU in BL1

by Ben

Hello, To decrease feature in BL1, I plan to disable MMU in BL1 stage. Are there any potential issues besides performance issues? BRs Ben(a)tsingmicro.com

1 year, 9 months

1
0
0 0

Question about maximum TF-A BL31 memory usage

by Peng Fan

Hi All, Is there any public BL31 memory usage data, such as static image size and runtime memory usage, with different feature enabled? For example, typical PSCI feature would require image size XXKB, runtime memory XXKB. enabling FFA would enlarge image size by XXKB, runtime memory enlarge XXKB. we are evaluating how much On-Chip RAM could be assigned for BL31, if there are any public data available, that would be great. Thanks, Peng.

1 year, 9 months

2
1
0 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-A July 2022