- TF-A - lists.trustedfirmware.org

When to implement plat_sdei_validate_entry_point?

by Jan Kiszka

Hi, I'm adding basic SDEI support to the zynqmp platform (just private event 0 for now), and I'm wondering what to do with plat_sdei_validate_entry_point(). Looking around what other SDEI implementations did, neither tegra nor the recently added imx8mm implement this and rather rely on the empty stub from plat/common/aarch64/plat_common.c. As zynqmp also pulls in plat/arm/common/arm_common.c and doesn't find any arm_validate_ns_entrypoint, my search started. Is there anything that makes the check for tegra and imx8mm unneeded? Or are they both broken and should better use plat_sdei_validate_entry_point from plat/arm/common/arm_common.c? Thanks, Jan

5 years, 2 months

2
3
0 0

Re: [TF-A] TF-A warm reboot question

by Soby Mathew

Hi Maxim, There could be some terminology mixup that needs to be clarified. These are the typical words related to boot in TF-A: 1. cold boot : This is the first boot after a power cycle. Typically a single CPU is powered up and executed the entire boot flow upto linux 2. Warm boot: The Cold boot has completed and transitioned into Linux kernel and then the kernel invokes PSCI_CPU_ON to power up the secondary CPUs. This is the CPU `hotplug` operation from linux side. The figure you referred to mentions these boot scenarios. Now reboot is system reset + cold boot. Ideally if QEMU has to support reboot, it needs to be able to reset the system (CPUs and peripherals) from software. The flow you suggest for QEMU could work but if the CPU and the peripherals are not reset properly, you could encounter errors later on because software could assume reset values for some registers and hence may not initialize it. Also there are registers that are 1 time write and cannot be written to again without proper reset cycle, and these could problems during execution. Best Regards Soby Mathew > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Maxim > Uvarov via TF-A > Sent: 24 September 2020 13:27 > To: Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov(a)linaro.org> > Cc: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Ilias Apalodimas > <ilias.apalodimas(a)linaro.org>; Arnd Bergmann <arnd(a)linaro.org> > Subject: Re: [TF-A] TF-A warm reboot question > > sorry, wrong email thread. > > Another way around is to not support "hot reset" in ATF, but make qemu > reboot is implement some watchdog for qemu virt platform. That also works > for me with quick implementation with lhe link which I sent in the previous > email. > > Maxim. > > On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 15:16, Maxim Uvarov via TF-A <tf- > a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > > > I.e. that implementation works for me: > > > https://github.com/muvarov/qemu/commit/f5e3fb83170613a9eed46b87358 > ab2e > > 37de260a2 > > > > On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 18:16, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov(a)linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I'm trying to understand why "warm reboot" is not currently > > > implemented in TF-A for qemu targets. I.e. in case of qemu armv8 > > > boot > > > atf->optee->uboot->linux and then reboot, cpu jumps to BL31 > > > qemu_system_reset() function which just calls panic(). I'm wondering > > > why loading images from this stage is not happening? Something > > > similar to bl2_load_images()->load_image() to load uboot and optee > > > os again and run them with bl31_main()? > > > > > > If I understand "CPU reset" spec [1] correctly, warm boot from reset > > > vector in BL31 again to Non-Secure world has to work. > > > > > > [1] > > > https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted- > firmware/blob/master/doc > > > s/design/reset-design.rst > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Maxim. > > -- > > 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

5 years, 2 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-A] TF-A warm reboot question

by Maxim Uvarov

sorry, wrong email thread. Another way around is to not support "hot reset" in ATF, but make qemu reboot is implement some watchdog for qemu virt platform. That also works for me with quick implementation with lhe link which I sent in the previous email. Maxim. On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 15:16, Maxim Uvarov via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > I.e. that implementation works for me: > https://github.com/muvarov/qemu/commit/f5e3fb83170613a9eed46b87358ab2e37de2… > > On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 18:16, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov(a)linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I'm trying to understand why "warm reboot" is not currently > > implemented in TF-A for qemu targets. I.e. in case of qemu armv8 boot > > atf->optee->uboot->linux and then reboot, cpu jumps to BL31 > > qemu_system_reset() function which just calls panic(). I'm wondering > > why loading images from this stage is not happening? Something > > similar to bl2_load_images()->load_image() to load uboot and optee os > > again and run them with bl31_main()? > > > > If I understand "CPU reset" spec [1] correctly, warm boot from reset > > vector in BL31 again to Non-Secure world has to work. > > > > [1] https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/docs/desig… > > > > Best regards, > > Maxim. > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

TF-A warm reboot question

by Maxim Uvarov

Hello, I'm trying to understand why "warm reboot" is not currently implemented in TF-A for qemu targets. I.e. in case of qemu armv8 boot atf->optee->uboot->linux and then reboot, cpu jumps to BL31 qemu_system_reset() function which just calls panic(). I'm wondering why loading images from this stage is not happening? Something similar to bl2_load_images()->load_image() to load uboot and optee os again and run them with bl31_main()? If I understand "CPU reset" spec [1] correctly, warm boot from reset vector in BL31 again to Non-Secure world has to work. [1] https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/docs/desig… Best regards, Maxim.

5 years, 2 months

1
1
0 0

Cancelled event with note: TF-A Tech Forum @ Thu 24 Sep 2020 16:00 - 17:00 (BST) (tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org)

by Bill Fletcher

This event has been cancelled with this note: "Due to conflicts with Linaro Connect this week we are cancelling this week’s TF-A Techforum on Thursday, 24th September 2020 at 16:00 – 17:00 BST. The next meeting will now be Thursday, 8th October 2020 at 16:00 – 17:00 BST" Title: TF-A Tech Forum 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/Tr… Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom Meetinghttps://zoom.us/j/9159704974Meeting ID: 915 970 4974One 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-freeMeeting ID: 915 970 4974Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad27hc6t7h   When: Thu 24 Sep 2020 16:00 – 17:00 United Kingdom Time Calendar: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Who: * Bill Fletcher- creator * marek.bykowski(a)gmail.com * okash.khawaja(a)gmail.com * tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Invitation from Google Calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/ You are receiving this courtesy email at the account tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively, you can sign up for a Google Account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organiser and be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of their own invitation status or to modify your RSVP. Learn more at https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Linaro Connect Sessions of Interest

by Don Harbin

Hi All, As Linaro Connect starts tomorrow, here are some pointers to sessions that will be of interest related to trustedfirmware.org. - *PSA Secure Partitions in OP-TEE* - Tuesday, September 22nd (1:25-1:50pm UTC) - Speaker: Miklos Balint - Slides available here <https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/lvc20/9a/LVC20-112_PSA_Secure_Partiti…> - *Trusted Firmware Project update* - Tuesday, Sept. 22nd (2:00-2:25pm UTC) - Spreaders: Matteo Carlini, Shebu Kuriakose - Slides available here <https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/lvc20/1e/LVC20-113-Trusted-Firmware-p…> - *Scalable Security Using Trusted Firmware-M Profiles* - Wednesday September 23rd (11.45am – 12.10pm UTC) - Speakers: Shebu Kuiakose, David Want - Slides available here <https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/lvc20/d0/ScalableSecurityUsingTrusted…> - *Enable UEFI Secure Boot using OP-TEE as Secure Partition* - Thursday September 24th (3.45-4.10pm UTC) - Speakers: Sahil Malhotra, Ilias Apalodimas - *Secure Partition Manager (SEL2 firmware) for Arm A-class devices* - Thursday September 24th (4.15-4.40pm UTC) - Speaker: Olivier Deprez - Slides are available here <https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/lvc20/09/LVC20-305-secure-partition-m…> Some general pointers to sessions of potential interest: - Security related topics can be viewed here - Boot architecture topics can be viewed here As a reminder, sign up for tomorrow's event is at Linaro Connect Registration <https://connect.linaro.org/> and is free, so feel free to forward this information on. :) The overall schedule is available at the same link as registration in case you may be interested in other sessions. Best regards, Don

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

TF-A TechForum 24th Sept Cancelled

by Joanna Farley

Due to conflicts this week I am cancelling this week’s TF-A Techforum on Thursday, 24th September 2020 at 16:00 – 17:00 BST. The next meeting will now be Thursday, 8th October 2020 at 16:00 – 17:00 BST Apologies all. Joanna

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] Tests to verify BP_OPTION

by Alexei Fedorov

Hi, Yes, there are fvp-pauth-pac-ret-leaf-sdei,fvp-pauth-standard:fvp-tftf-fip.tftf-aemv8a.8_5-debug fvp-pauth-pac-ret-leaf-tsp-sdei,fvp-pauth-standard:fvp-tftf-fip.tftf-aemv8a.8_5-debug configs in platform-ci/group/tftf-l2-fvp introduced by https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/ci/tf-a-ci-scripts/+/5393 Alexei ________________________________ From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Varun Wadekar via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 17 September 2020 19:18 To: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan <kalyanic(a)nvidia.com>; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-A] Tests to verify BP_OPTION <Bump to get this email through> From: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan <kalyanic(a)nvidia.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:54 AM To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: Varun Wadekar <vwadekar(a)nvidia.com> Subject: Tests to verify BP_OPTION Hi, Is there any test to verify the BP_OPTION feature set to “pac-ret+leaf” ? When BRANCH_PROTECTION is set to “3”, BP_OPTION is set to “pac-ret+leaf”. Reference code - https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/Makefile Thanks, Kalyani

5 years, 2 months

2
2
0 0

Re: [TF-A] Query TSPD behavior with EHF

by Soby Mathew

Hi Sandeep > Except during yielding SMC ‘disable_intr_rm_local(INTR_TYPE_NS, SECUE);’ is in effect. Intention is to avoid NS interrupt preempt secure execution (Fast SMC). > But I think that will also disable G0 interrupt as both NS interrupt and G0 interrupt are on FIQ. > EHF already ensures this by GIC PMR adjustment. So disabling routing model seems unnecessary in this case. > This is my understanding from the code please confirm if this is correct. The EL3 interrupts (G0 interrupts) should be able to pre-empt Fast SMC. Hence the usage of GIC PMR to mask the NS interrupts. As Dan says, the TSP_NS_INTR_ASYNC_PREEMPT predates the EHF design and it seems there is a problem as you describe. > EHF already ensures this by GIC PMR adjustment. So disabling routing model seems unnecessary in this case. > This is my understanding from the code please confirm if this is correct. You are right. Routing model manipulation is not required when EL3 interrupts are present as GIC PMR manipulation should take care of the required behaviour for yielding vs atomic SMC. You also need to ensure it works as expected when EL3 interrupts are not enabled and when EHF is disabled. Best Regards Soby Mathew > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Sandeep > Tripathy via TF-A > Sent: 17 September 2020 16:53 > To: Dan Handley <Dan.Handley(a)arm.com> > Cc: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Subject: Re: [TF-A] Query TSPD behavior with EHF > > Hi Dan, > I am not sure if this is mentioned anywhere in any documents but I think > EHF handlers should be able to preempt all execution contexts at lower ELs > and lower ELs should never be able to mask such interrupts. > If the behavioral expectation is set the implementation can be fixed. > > Thanks > Sandeep > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:57 PM Dan Handley via TF-A <tf- > a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > > > A correction... > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Dan > > > Handley via TF-A > > > Sent: 17 September 2020 15:14 > > > > > > > > > > I want to handle something similar in OP-TEED along with EHF > > > > > depending on > > > > what is the expected behavior. > > > > > > > > Hmm, I thought OP-TEED was more like the > TSP_NS_INTR_ASYNC_PREEMPT=0 > > > case, where NS interrupts are routed to S-EL1 while processing a > > > yielding SMC in S- EL1? Perhaps that's a better TSPD config for you to > follow? > > > > > Sorry, if EL3_EXCEPTION_HANDLING=1 then obviously NS interrupts are > routed to EL3 first, but the TSPD re-enables NS interrupts before handing > over to the TSP to handle yielding calls, via a call to > ehf_allow_ns_preemption. > > > > Right, that is the case for yielding SMC handling where both NS interrupts > and EL3/G0 interrupts can preempt the S_EL1/S_EL2 context. > But I would expect the same routing model even for 'Fast SMC' unlike what is > happening in TSPD. > > > Dan. > > > > -- > > 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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] Build failure in OpenCI

by Joanna Farley

FYI we are trying to get the OpenCI to use a different label (Validation-Bot-Review) which is not part our of day to day workflow for patch approvals but standard plugins being used don't seem to support non standard labels so they are working on an alternative approach. Hopefully it will be fixed soon so we don't have to manually remove the OpenCI bot setting on the CR label. Joanna On 18/09/2020, 09:30, "TF-A on behalf of Yann GAUTIER via TF-A" <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: Hi Olivier, Thanks for your answer. I was not particularly worried when I saw what the error was. And I understand it can take time to stabilize such infrastructure. It is nice that we can have access to it now. Regards, Yann -----Original Message----- From: Olivier Deprez <Olivier.Deprez(a)arm.com> Sent: vendredi 18 septembre 2020 10:22 To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Yann GAUTIER <yann.gautier(a)st.com> Subject: Re: Build failure in OpenCI Hi Yann, The OpenCI is under enablement/works, and I think you can safely ignore those CR-1/Verified-1 from the bot. Current CI strategy is still about maintainers applying Allow-CI+1/2 (resulting in Verified+1 on success). Sorry for the trouble it causes presently. Regards, Olivier. ________________________________________ From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Yann GAUTIER via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 18 September 2020 09:33 To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-A] Build failure in OpenCI Hi, I've pushed some series of patches this morning, but none of them passes the OpenCI builds and tests. For all of them, the error is the same, Lava cannot find a file: http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-a-builder//ws/custom_lava_job_definiti…<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-a-builder/ws/custom_lava_job_definitio…> See for example: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/post-build-lava/3941/console Do you know what's wrong with this file? And if it will be corrected soon? Thanks, Yann -- TF-A mailing list TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] Build failure in OpenCI

by Olivier Deprez

Hi Yann, The OpenCI is under enablement/works, and I think you can safely ignore those CR-1/Verified-1 from the bot. Current CI strategy is still about maintainers applying Allow-CI+1/2 (resulting in Verified+1 on success). Sorry for the trouble it causes presently. Regards, Olivier. ________________________________________ From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Yann GAUTIER via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 18 September 2020 09:33 To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-A] Build failure in OpenCI Hi, I’ve pushed some series of patches this morning, but none of them passes the OpenCI builds and tests. For all of them, the error is the same, Lava cannot find a file: http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-a-builder//ws/custom_lava_job_definiti…<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-a-builder/ws/custom_lava_job_definitio…> See for example: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/post-build-lava/3941/console Do you know what’s wrong with this file? And if it will be corrected soon? Thanks, Yann

5 years, 2 months

2
1
0 0

Build failure in OpenCI

by Yann GAUTIER

Hi, I've pushed some series of patches this morning, but none of them passes the OpenCI builds and tests. For all of them, the error is the same, Lava cannot find a file: http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-a-builder//ws/custom_lava_job_definiti…<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-a-builder/ws/custom_lava_job_definitio…> See for example: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/post-build-lava/3941/console Do you know what's wrong with this file? And if it will be corrected soon? Thanks, Yann

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Tests to verify BP_OPTION

by Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan

Hi, Is there any test to verify the BP_OPTION feature set to "pac-ret+leaf" ? When BRANCH_PROTECTION is set to "3", BP_OPTION is set to "pac-ret+leaf". Reference code - https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/Makefile Thanks, Kalyani

5 years, 2 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-A] Query TSPD behavior with EHF

by Sandeep Tripathy

Hi Dan, I am not sure if this is mentioned anywhere in any documents but I think EHF handlers should be able to preempt all execution contexts at lower ELs and lower ELs should never be able to mask such interrupts. If the behavioral expectation is set the implementation can be fixed. Thanks Sandeep On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:57 PM Dan Handley via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > A correction... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Dan Handley > > via TF-A > > Sent: 17 September 2020 15:14 > > > > > > > > I want to handle something similar in OP-TEED along with EHF > > > > depending on > > > what is the expected behavior. > > > > > > Hmm, I thought OP-TEED was more like the TSP_NS_INTR_ASYNC_PREEMPT=0 case, > > where NS interrupts are routed to S-EL1 while processing a yielding SMC in S- > > EL1? Perhaps that's a better TSPD config for you to follow? > > > Sorry, if EL3_EXCEPTION_HANDLING=1 then obviously NS interrupts are routed to EL3 first, but the TSPD re-enables NS interrupts before handing over to the TSP to handle yielding calls, via a call to ehf_allow_ns_preemption. > Right, that is the case for yielding SMC handling where both NS interrupts and EL3/G0 interrupts can preempt the S_EL1/S_EL2 context. But I would expect the same routing model even for 'Fast SMC' unlike what is happening in TSPD. > Dan. > > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] Query TSPD behavior with EHF

by Dan Handley

A correction... > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Dan Handley > via TF-A > Sent: 17 September 2020 15:14 > > > > > > I want to handle something similar in OP-TEED along with EHF > > > depending on > > what is the expected behavior. > > > > Hmm, I thought OP-TEED was more like the TSP_NS_INTR_ASYNC_PREEMPT=0 case, > where NS interrupts are routed to S-EL1 while processing a yielding SMC in S- > EL1? Perhaps that's a better TSPD config for you to follow? > Sorry, if EL3_EXCEPTION_HANDLING=1 then obviously NS interrupts are routed to EL3 first, but the TSPD re-enables NS interrupts before handing over to the TSP to handle yielding calls, via a call to ehf_allow_ns_preemption. Dan.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] Query TSPD behavior with EHF

by Dan Handley

Hi Sandeep > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Sandeep > Tripathy via TF-A > > > > EHF activates the routing model for ‘INTR_TYPE_EL3’ CSS = 0 , TEL3 = 1 > ie FIQ trapped to EL3 and not visible and not mask-able to lower ELs. > > > > Which means G0 interrupts (all EHF interrupts) expected to preempt any > > execution context. And secure state cannot mask such interrupts > > > > eg: critical error interrupts. Sort of NMI behavior. > > > > However from TSPD code I see ‘TSP_NS_INTR_ASYNC_PREEMPT’ enforces a > slightly different behavior. G0 interrupt cannot preempt a fast smc handler > in SPD. > > > > Except during yielding SMC ‘disable_intr_rm_local(INTR_TYPE_NS, SECURE);’ > is in effect. Intention is to avoid NS interrupt preempt secure execution > (Fast SMC). > > But I think that will also disable G0 interrupt as both NS interrupt and G0 > interrupt are on FIQ. I haven't double checked but that sounds correct. > > EHF already ensures this by GIC PMR adjustment. So disabling routing model > seems unnecessary in this case. > > This is my understanding from the code please confirm if this is correct. > > The TSPD's TSP_NS_INTR_ASYNC_PREEMPT functionality predates the EHF, which probably explains why NS interrupts are disabled in 2 ways in this config (i.e. when both TSP_NS_INTR_ASYNC_PREEMPT and EL3_EXCEPTION_HANDLING equal 1). I guess it's possible that the call to disable the routing model can be safely removed in this config but it would require some thorough code review and testing. I'm not sure if this config is tested much at all. > > > > > > Do we think it is not aligned with G0 interrupt preemption rule. Or do we > treat Fast SMC at S_EL1/EL2 as non interruptible. > > I think G0 interrupts should be handled in this case but I'm not sure if this is easy to fix in the TSPD. > > > > > > I want to handle something similar in OP-TEED along with EHF depending on > what is the expected behavior. > > Hmm, I thought OP-TEED was more like the TSP_NS_INTR_ASYNC_PREEMPT=0 case, where NS interrupts are routed to S-EL1 while processing a yielding SMC in S-EL1? Perhaps that's a better TSPD config for you to follow? Regards Dan.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] Query TSPD behavior with EHF

by Sandeep Tripathy

Updated.. On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:51 AM Sandeep Tripathy via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > EHF activates the routing model for ‘INTR_TYPE_EL3’ CSS = 0 , TEL3 = 1 ie FIQ trapped to EL3 and not visible and not mask-able to lower ELs. > > Which means G0 interrupts (all EHF interrupts) expected to preempt any execution context. And secure state cannot mask such interrupts > > eg: critical error interrupts. Sort of NMI behavior. > > > > However from TSPD code I see ‘TSP_NS_INTR_ASYNC_PREEMPT’ enforces a slightly different behavior. G0 interrupt cannot preempt a fast smc handler in SPD. > > Except during yielding SMC ‘disable_intr_rm_local(INTR_TYPE_NS, SECURE);’ is in effect. Intention is to avoid NS interrupt preempt secure execution (Fast SMC). > But I think that will also disable G0 interrupt as both NS interrupt and G0 interrupt are on FIQ. > EHF already ensures this by GIC PMR adjustment. So disabling routing model seems unnecessary in this case. > This is my understanding from the code please confirm if this is correct. > > > > Do we think it is not aligned with G0 interrupt preemption rule. Or do we treat Fast SMC at S_EL1/EL2 as non interruptible. > > > > I want to handle something similar in OP-TEED along with EHF depending on what is the expected behavior. > > > > Thanks > > Sandeep > > > > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Query TSPD behavior with EHF

by Sandeep Tripathy

Hi, EHF activates the routing model for ‘INTR_TYPE_EL3’ CSS = 0 , TEL3 = 1 ie FIQ trapped to EL3 and not visible and not mask-able to lower ELs. Which means G0 interrupts (all EHF interrupts) expected to preempt any execution context. And secure state cannot mask such interrupts eg: critical error interrupts. Sort of NMI behavior. However from TSPD code I see ‘TSP_NS_INTR_ASYNC_PREEMPT’ enforces a slightly different behavior. G0 interrupt cannot preempt a fast smc handler in SPD. Except during yielding SMC ‘disable_intr_rm_local(INTR_TYPE_NS, SECURE);’ is in effect. Intention is to avoid NS interrupt preempt secure execution (Fast SMC). But I think that will also disable G0 interrupt as both NS interrupt and G0 interrupt are on FIQ. This is my understanding from the code please confirm if this is correct. Do we think it is not aligned with G0 interrupt preemption rule. Or do we treat Fast SMC at S_EL1/EL2 as non interruptible. I want to handle something similar in OP-TEED along with EHF depending on what is the expected behavior. Thanks Sandeep

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

ATF currently does not use proper printf format specifiers for fixed width types

by Scott Branden

Hello, ATF currently uses non-portable printf format specifiers for fixed width types defined in stdint.h In addition, ATF redefines types defined in gcc for stdint.h with its own custom types causing additional issues. This causes compilation issues when porting code to/from ATF. AND, generates coverity parse errors as int64_t and uint64_t are incorrectly defined in ATF vs. gcc for aarch64. The printf format specifiers in inttypes.h are to be used for the proper format specifiers. And, uint64_t/int64_t should be defined the same as in gcc. I tried fixing up all the instances of int64 printf format specifiers by introducing inttypes.h and redefined the stdint types correctly here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/5437 We have checked the change into our local tree so that everything compiles and runs in our system. Please accept change upstream. Regards, Scott

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] ATF LTS version

by François Ozog

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 23:42, Varun Wadekar via TF-A < tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > Hello Matteo, > > Apologies for still using an outdated term. I have trained myself to get > used to "TF-A" - looks like I am still not there. > > >> The idea has also been just raised to the Trusted Firmware project > Board for initial consideration and we will be all very keen to understand > how much interest there is from the wider TF-A community of adopters and > external (non-Arm) maintainers > > That is good to hear. For the exact scope, I think we can assume the usual > expectations from any LTS software stack - stability, performance, > security, bug fixes along with maintenance support. We are open to > discussing the cadence and any other operational commitments. > > @Francois, from the description of Trusted Substrate looks like you also > expect the sub-projects to provide LTS versions for the project as a whole > to succeed (?) > > Yes. I assume relevant tf.org projects decide to branch LTSes so that we can extend the scope to selected OP-TEE TAs for the Trusted Substrate LTS and may be extend duration of support for the tf.org LTSes. (just to make sure: this is just early open thinking to understand what it would mean to build such a service on the Linaro side should there be tf.org LTSes). -Varun > > > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Matteo > Carlini via TF-A > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 4:25 AM > To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Subject: Re: [TF-A] ATF LTS version > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > Hi Francois, > > > I'd be happy to know more about what you see as TFA LTS: exact scope, > number of versions, duration, operational commitments (zero-day...). > > Do you have other firmware LTS needs? > > Agree. That’s precisely what I was hinting to Varun, when mentioning > concrete requirements for the LTS scheme. > > > Trusted Substrate is the aggregation of { TFA, OP-TEE, some TEE apps > such as firmwareTPM, U-Boot }. > > Trusted Substrate effort is led by Linaro members and is going to be set > up as a more open project. > > First time I heard about it. Good to know, but I guess we'll need to > discuss the intersection and collaboration with the Trusted Firmware > project at some point. > Having a LTS versioning scheme for the Trusted Firmware hosted projects > should be theoretically either in the scope of the Project itself or, if > the Board agrees, appointed to some other project/entity. > > > Our end goal is to enable unified, transactional, robust (anti-bricking, > anti rollback) UEFI OTA on both U-Boot and EDK2. > > Fair, but IMHO this has little to do with Arm Secure world software LTS > releases (TF-A/Hafnium/OP-TEE/TAs, TF-M)...probably best to discuss aside, > this is not in scope of what Varun is raising. > > Thanks > Matteo > > -- > 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

5 years, 2 months

2
2
0 0

Test message please ignore

by Bill Fletcher

.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

TF-A Tech Forum Agenda @ Thr 10th September 2020 16:00-1700 BST

by Joanna Farley

Hi All, The next TF-A Tech Forum is scheduled for Thu 10th September 2020 16:00 – 17:00 (BST). A reoccurring meeting invite has been sent out to the subscribers of this TF-A mailing list. If you don’t have this please let me know. Agenda: * Proposal for a LTS (Long Term Support) Release Option for TF-A * Presented by Varun Wadekar * Long-term support is a lifecycle management policy in which a stable release is maintained for a period of time * Optional TF-A Mailing List Topic Discussions If TF-A contributors have anything they wish to present at any future TF-A tech forum please contact me to have that scheduled. Previous sessions, both recording and presentation material can be found on the trustedfirmware.org TF-A Technical meeting webpage: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-a-technical-forum/ A scheduling tracking page is also available to help track sessions suggested and being prepared: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/tf_a/tf-a-tech-forum-scheduling/ Final decisions on what will be presented will be shared a few days before the next meeting and shared on the TF-A mailing list. Thanks Joanna

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction

by Olivier Deprez

Hi again, After further check, it looks gcc 9.2 already supports the appropriate option. Maybe you missed ARM_ARCH_MINOR on the build command line depending on whether you need PAuth (Armv8.3) and/or BTI (Armv8.5). BRANCH_PROTECTION=2 or 3 => need ARM_ARCH_MINOR=3 (at least) BRANCH_PROTECTION=1 or 4 => need ARM_ARCH_MINOR=5 Regards, Olivier. ________________________________________ From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Olivier Deprez via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 03 September 2020 09:47 To: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Varun Wadekar Subject: Re: [TF-A] GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction Hi Kalyani, According to https://trustedfirmware-a.readthedocs.io/en/latest/getting_started/build-op… you need a compiler supporting the -mbranch-protection option. This seems to be the case from gcc 9.3 onwards: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/AArch64-Options.html#AArch64-O… Notice a GCC10.2 cross-compiler release is planned by end of this year according to this page: https://community.arm.com/developer/tools-software/tools/b/tools-software-i… Regards, Olivier. ________________________________________ From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Varun Wadekar via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 03 September 2020 04:08 To: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-A] GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction <Dummy response to get the email through to the mailing list> From: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan <kalyanic(a)nvidia.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 3:43 PM To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: Varun Wadekar <vwadekar(a)nvidia.com> Subject: GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction Hi, We are using gcc-arm-9.2 toolchain and see that this is not supporting the “xpaci” instruction. Is there any compiler flag that has to be included to support this? Reference code that uses “xpaci” when PAUTH is enabled - https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/bl31/aarch… Thanks, Kalyani -- TF-A mailing list TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction

by Olivier Deprez

Hi Kalyani, According to https://trustedfirmware-a.readthedocs.io/en/latest/getting_started/build-op… you need a compiler supporting the -mbranch-protection option. This seems to be the case from gcc 9.3 onwards: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/AArch64-Options.html#AArch64-O… Notice a GCC10.2 cross-compiler release is planned by end of this year according to this page: https://community.arm.com/developer/tools-software/tools/b/tools-software-i… Regards, Olivier. ________________________________________ From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Varun Wadekar via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 03 September 2020 04:08 To: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-A] GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction <Dummy response to get the email through to the mailing list> From: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan <kalyanic(a)nvidia.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 3:43 PM To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: Varun Wadekar <vwadekar(a)nvidia.com> Subject: GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction Hi, We are using gcc-arm-9.2 toolchain and see that this is not supporting the “xpaci” instruction. Is there any compiler flag that has to be included to support this? Reference code that uses “xpaci” when PAUTH is enabled - https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/bl31/aarch… Thanks, Kalyani

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction

by Varun Wadekar

<Dummy response to get the email through to the mailing list> From: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan <kalyanic(a)nvidia.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 3:43 PM To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: Varun Wadekar <vwadekar(a)nvidia.com> Subject: GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction Hi, We are using gcc-arm-9.2 toolchain and see that this is not supporting the "xpaci" instruction. Is there any compiler flag that has to be included to support this? Reference code that uses "xpaci" when PAUTH is enabled - https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/bl31/aarch… Thanks, Kalyani

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-A