September 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.…>

12 months

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, 4 months

7
14
1 0

security: BL2 at EL3 on v8a based system

by sandeep tripathy

Hi, With the RME feature BL2 has to run at EL3 instead of EL1_S. EL3 has a separate PAS not accessible to EL1_S. Is there any harm in choosing to run BL2 at EL3 instead of BL2 at S_EL1 even for non-RME(v8a) systems? Given that EL3 and EL1_S have access to the same PAS. I am trying to revisit the motivation to run BL2 at EL1_S. I see there was an old discussion at https://github.com/ARM-software/tf-issues/issues/445 The reasoning was not pointing to any issue in specific but a generic principle of less permissiveness. Thanks Sandeep

1 year, 7 months

2
4
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, 7 months

3
7
1 0

Adding Openssl3 build capability to TF-A

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi, As you may know, the build system was changed, and the tip of master depends on Openssl3. This version is quite new and is not available in many old (or not so old) but still supported operating systems. (Ubuntu 18.04 is an example.) I made a quick and dirty fix to allow building Opessl3 right from TF-A if the source is pre-fetched. You can find this change here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/16800 For our downstream project this is a perfect solution as the same component introducing the new dependency carries the solution. Thus, my build environment is not becoming TF-A version specific. From TF-A point of view the situation is not so simple. The above patch extends TF-A with "build environment provisioning" responsibility. Before this patch TF-A assumed, all "common" dependencies are available in the build environment, and this patch changes that. Yes, some strongly TF-A specific components were owned and built by TF-A, but openssl is different. Thus, my modification is a "game changer" in some ways. A few things to consider: * Openssl becomes a special kind of TPIP which the project will need to manage (e.g. look for security risks, version updates, compatibility to different OSs and OS versions, etc...). * This is a system wide component. There is a risk of breaking something the build uses. Hidden things like a python module depending on openssl and now picking up an incompatible version. * This change might be considered as layer bleeding since it "melds" responsibilities of the TF-A project and the "owner of the build environment". IMHO this might be a significant difference from supply-chain security perspectives. There are alternatives which might be considered better: * making the build system and host side tooling (e.g. cert_tool) backwards compatible with openssl2 * hosting pre-built static binaries somewhere, which would simplify build environment updates As I mentioned above, this is a "good enough" fix for my use-case, but not sure if this is the right approach from TF-A perspectives. I am happy to tidy up this patch and push it trough the review, but the efforts needed to implement "other options" are beyond my capacity. I am looking for feedback both from TF-A maintainers and from "build environment owners". Thanks! /George Ps.: Apologies for not doing "my homework". I know there is a ticket somewhere in Phabricator and I did not invest the needed time to find it.

1 year, 7 months

2
2
0 0

Finally, a TF-A LTS Proposal!

by Okash Khawaja

TL;DR: Attached is the TF-A LTS proposal doc. Please review and share your thoughts. Hello everyone, Long term support for TF-A has a long history. As a community we have flirted with it for a while, and like any flirtation, it started with gossip -- in our case, over mailing list [1] -- more than two years ago. Then Varun Wadekar did a wonderful tech forum presentation [2] which demonstrated interest in the topic and raised interesting questions about LTS. After some time, the affair lost headline status, only to be revived again [3], earlier this year. This time however, there is a formal proposal (no pun intended). After the mailing list discussion and feedback from TF-A tech forum [4], we have put together a draft which attempts to give a concrete idea about what the TF-A LTS will look like. Please spare some time to read through it and share your feedback. The plan is to put LTS into action this November. Cheers! Okash [1] https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/archives/search?mlist=tf-a%40lists.truste… [2] https://www.trustedfirmware.org/docs/TF-A-LTS.pdf [3] https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/archives/list/tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.… [4] https://www.trustedfirmware.org/docs/TForg_LTS_proposal.pdf

1 year, 7 months

5
7
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 370380: Code maintainability issues (UNUSED_VALUE) /plat/xilinx/versal/pm_service/pm_svc_main.c: 128 in pm_setup() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 370380: Code maintainability issues (UNUSED_VALUE) /plat/xilinx/versal/pm_service/pm_svc_main.c: 128 in pm_setup() 122 int32_t status, ret = 0; 123 124 status = pm_ipi_init(primary_proc); 125 126 if (status < 0) { 127 INFO("BL31: PM Service Init Failed, Error Code %d!\n", status); >>> CID 370380: Code maintainability issues (UNUSED_VALUE) >>> Assigning value from "status" to "ret" here, but that stored value is overwritten before it can be used. 128 ret = status; 129 } else { 130 pm_up = true; 131 } 132 133 /* ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P…

1 year, 7 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. 1 defect(s), reported by Coverity Scan earlier, were marked fixed in the recent build analyzed by Coverity Scan. New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan Showing 1 of 1 defect(s) ** CID 380957: Integer handling issues (NO_EFFECT) /drivers/arm/gic/v3/gicv3_main.c: 1109 in gicv3_raise_sgi() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 380957: Integer handling issues (NO_EFFECT) /drivers/arm/gic/v3/gicv3_main.c: 1109 in gicv3_raise_sgi() 1103 u_register_t target) 1104 { 1105 unsigned int tgt, aff3, aff2, aff1, aff0; 1106 uint64_t sgi_val; 1107 1108 /* Verify interrupt number is in the SGI range */ >>> CID 380957: Integer handling issues (NO_EFFECT) >>> This greater-than-or-equal-to-zero comparison of an unsigned value is always true. "sgi_num >= 0U". 1109 assert((sgi_num >= MIN_SGI_ID) && (sgi_num < MIN_PPI_ID)); 1110 1111 /* Extract affinity fields from target */ 1112 aff0 = MPIDR_AFFLVL0_VAL(target); 1113 aff1 = MPIDR_AFFLVL1_VAL(target); 1114 aff2 = MPIDR_AFFLVL2_VAL(target); ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P…

1 year, 7 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. 4 new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan. 1 defect(s), reported by Coverity Scan earlier, were marked fixed in the recent build analyzed by Coverity Scan. New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan Showing 4 of 4 defect(s) ** CID 380859: Integer handling issues (BAD_SHIFT) /drivers/arm/gic/v3/gic600_multichip.c: 290 in gic700_multichip_validate_data() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 380859: Integer handling issues (BAD_SHIFT) /drivers/arm/gic/v3/gic600_multichip.c: 290 in gic700_multichip_validate_data() 284 } 285 multichip_spi_blocks |= blocks_of_32; 286 } 287 288 /* ESPI IDs overlap check */ 289 if (spi_id_max > GIC700_ESPI_ID_MIN) { >>> CID 380859: Integer handling issues (BAD_SHIFT) >>> In expression "1 << (spi_id_max - 4096U + 1U >> 5)", left shifting by more than 31 bits has undefined behavior. The shift amount, "spi_id_max - 4096U + 1U >> 5", is as much as 32. 290 blocks_of_32 = BLOCKS_OF_32(spi_id_min - GIC700_ESPI_ID_MIN, 291 spi_id_max - GIC700_ESPI_ID_MIN); 292 if ((multichip_espi_blocks & blocks_of_32) != 0) { 293 ERROR("SPI IDs of Chip %u overlapping\n", i); 294 panic(); 295 } ** CID 380858: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /drivers/nxp/crypto/caam/src/rng.c: 45 in is_hw_rng_instantiated() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 380858: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /drivers/nxp/crypto/caam/src/rng.c: 45 in is_hw_rng_instantiated() 39 40 /*Check if either of the two state handles has been instantiated */ 41 if (rdsta & RNG_STATE0_HANDLE_INSTANTIATED) { 42 *state_handle = 0; 43 ret_code = 1; 44 } else if (rdsta & RNG_STATE0_HANDLE_INSTANTIATED) { >>> CID 380858: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) >>> Execution cannot reach this statement: "*state_handle = 1U;". 45 *state_handle = 1; 46 ret_code = 1; 47 } 48 49 return ret_code; 50 } ** CID 380857: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /drivers/st/fmc/stm32_fmc2_nand.c: 284 in stm32_fmc2_nand_setup_timing() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 380857: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /drivers/st/fmc/stm32_fmc2_nand.c: 284 in stm32_fmc2_nand_setup_timing() 278 if ((tset_mem < NAND_TADL_MIN) && 279 (thold_att < (NAND_TADL_MIN - tset_mem))) { 280 thold_att = NAND_TADL_MIN - tset_mem; 281 } 282 if ((tset_mem < NAND_TWH_MIN) && 283 (thold_att < (NAND_TWH_MIN - tset_mem))) { >>> CID 380857: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) >>> Execution cannot reach this statement: "thold_att = 30000UL - tset_...". 284 thold_att = NAND_TWH_MIN - tset_mem; 285 } 286 if ((tset_mem < NAND_TWHR_MIN) && 287 (thold_att < (NAND_TWHR_MIN - tset_mem))) { 288 thold_att = NAND_TWHR_MIN - tset_mem; 289 } ** CID 380856: Integer handling issues (BAD_SHIFT) /plat/intel/soc/common/drivers/qspi/cadence_qspi.c: 583 in cad_qspi_init() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 380856: Integer handling issues (BAD_SHIFT) /plat/intel/soc/common/drivers/qspi/cadence_qspi.c: 583 in cad_qspi_init() 577 578 cap_code = CAD_QSPI_STIG_RDID_CAPACITYID(rdid); 579 580 if (!(((cap_code >> 4) > 0x9) || ((cap_code & 0xf) > 0x9))) { 581 uint32_t decoded_cap = ((cap_code >> 4) * 10) + 582 (cap_code & 0xf); >>> CID 380856: Integer handling issues (BAD_SHIFT) >>> In expression "1 << decoded_cap + 6U", left shifting by more than 31 bits has undefined behavior. The shift amount, "decoded_cap + 6U", is as much as 105. 583 qspi_device_size = 1 << (decoded_cap + 6); 584 INFO("QSPI Capacity: %x\n\n", qspi_device_size); 585 586 } else { 587 ERROR("Invalid CapacityID encountered: 0x%02x\n", 588 cap_code); ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P…

1 year, 7 months

1
0
0 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-A September 2022