Hi,
Stepping back to the initial thread, I now miss the rationale for routing interrupts to EL3.
"I have successfully implement a Linux driver that allows me to dump kernel page tables and memory; however, I cannot see user page tables (even after running a CPU intensive program ). I believe the only way to view user page tables is to have interrupts routed to EL3 – a Linux driver is not sufficient."
If your intent is to dump user process page tables, that's something to do using the linux kernel mm framework, and not necessarily at EL3. Not sure why a "linux driver is not sufficient". More inputs on this may be beneficial.
Nevertheless if you need a service in EL3 to do "introspection", you would rather write a form of SiP service accessed through SMC (not necessarily routing interrupts through FIQ).
As for the code snippets, replacing vbar_el3 with your own vector table looks wrong.
This will break any service call back into EL3 when linux is booted (e.g. PSCI calls....)
If you really want to route interrupts to EL3 you shall use the Interrupt Handling Framework as Manish suggested.
e.g.
uint64_t fiq_handler(uint32_t id, uint32_t flags, void *handle, void *cookie)
{
[...]
return 0;
}
void register_my_interrupt(void)
{
int32_t rc, flags = 0;
plat_ic_set_interrupt_type(intid, INTR_TYPE_EL3);
set_interrupt_rm_flag(flags, NON_SECURE);
rc = register_interrupt_type_handler(INTR_TYPE_EL3, fiq_handler, flags);
NOTICE("register_interrupt_type_handler %d\n", rc);
}
Regards,
Olivier.
________________________________________
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of AT&T via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 03 February 2021 02:15
To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [TF-A] 1023 spurious interrupt
Yep, I had an O not a zero. Don’t see a difference yet, but that definitely needed to be fixed. Thank you.
Ian Burres
Cybersecurity R&D
> On Feb 2, 2021, at 3:53 PM, tf-a-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org wrote:
>
> Send TF-A mailing list submissions to
> tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> tf-a-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> tf-a-owner(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of TF-A digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Spurious interrupt 1023 (Ian Burres)
> 2. Re: Spurious interrupt 1023 (Manish Pandey2)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 14:03:05 -0700
> From: Ian Burres <iburres(a)att.net>
> To: Olivier Deprez <Olivier.Deprez(a)arm.com>,
> "tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> Subject: Re: [TF-A] Spurious interrupt 1023
> Message-ID: <20210202210320.2C48741B32(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> UPDATE: I managed to get the Pi to complete the boot process, which is a major hurdle I have been trying to overcome.
>
> As for your questions Olivier:
>
> The vector table is loaded during bl31 (its called in the bl31_main.c main() function, right after bl31_platform_setup()). The Pi 4B uses GICv2 (your assumption was correct) and the BCM2711 chip.
>
> Right now both my irq and fiq handlers use: ID = gicv2_get_pending_interrupt_id(); to read the INTID.
>
> Neither handler does anything else other than print the ID, which returns 1023 for fiq only, using HS_DEBUG(). Nothing returns for irq.
>
> Build options are: PLAT=rpi4 DEBUG=1 LOG_LEVEL=50 RUNTIME_UART=2 GICV2_GO_FOR_EL3=1
>
> Wasn’t trying to route the UART RX interrupt to EL3, though that’s not a bad idea (FIFO, right?) . However, I have been exploring the idea of generating an ARM timer interrupt (not system timer), but I couldn’t get past the boot issue, which seems to have now been resolved.
>
> Questions: Do you see any reason why loading the vector table during the boot process will prevent interrupts from being routed to EL3 correctly? If you do not, then I think I can take it from here.
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
> From: Olivier Deprez
> Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 2:36 AM
> To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; AT&T
> Subject: Re: [TF-A] Spurious interrupt 1023
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> I guess we'll need a bit more details in order to help you.
> Which platform are you using? which GIC version is it using (looks like GICv2?) ?
> How did you built TF-A for this platform (command line arguments)?
> What is executing on your platform (e.g. linux in the non-secure world)? Is there any component in the SWd (apart from EL3 monitor) like a TEE?
> Are you trying to route the UART RX interrupt to EL3?
> Is this UART instance only owned by the SWd?
> How did you setup the interrupt handler?
> Which function are you using to read the INTID?
>
> Regards,
> Olivier.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of AT&T via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> Sent: 29 January 2021 21:08
> To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: [TF-A] Spurious interrupt 1023
>
> I asked a similar question before, but I have since made some headway concerning routing fiq interrupts to EL3. I placed an HS_DEBUG command to print the ID, which returns 1023. The RX signal on one of the attached UARTs causes a solid red light and the debug message continuously loops. When I use the functions from gicv2.h, I receive an assertion error regarding MAX_SPI_ID, but the looping stops.
>
> I think the 1023 ID suggests non-secure is receiving a secure interrupt OR I’m dealing with a possible race condition. Any thoughts? Should I attach my code?
>
>
>
> Ian Burres
> Cybersecurity R&D
>
>
> --
> TF-A mailing list
> TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
>
>
Yep, I had an O not a zero. Don’t see a difference yet, but that definitely needed to be fixed. Thank you.
Ian Burres
Cybersecurity R&D
> On Feb 2, 2021, at 3:53 PM, tf-a-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org wrote:
>
> Send TF-A mailing list submissions to
> tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> tf-a-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> tf-a-owner(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of TF-A digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Spurious interrupt 1023 (Ian Burres)
> 2. Re: Spurious interrupt 1023 (Manish Pandey2)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 14:03:05 -0700
> From: Ian Burres <iburres(a)att.net>
> To: Olivier Deprez <Olivier.Deprez(a)arm.com>,
> "tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> Subject: Re: [TF-A] Spurious interrupt 1023
> Message-ID: <20210202210320.2C48741B32(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> UPDATE: I managed to get the Pi to complete the boot process, which is a major hurdle I have been trying to overcome.
>
> As for your questions Olivier:
>
> The vector table is loaded during bl31 (its called in the bl31_main.c main() function, right after bl31_platform_setup()). The Pi 4B uses GICv2 (your assumption was correct) and the BCM2711 chip.
>
> Right now both my irq and fiq handlers use: ID = gicv2_get_pending_interrupt_id(); to read the INTID.
>
> Neither handler does anything else other than print the ID, which returns 1023 for fiq only, using HS_DEBUG(). Nothing returns for irq.
>
> Build options are: PLAT=rpi4 DEBUG=1 LOG_LEVEL=50 RUNTIME_UART=2 GICV2_GO_FOR_EL3=1
>
> Wasn’t trying to route the UART RX interrupt to EL3, though that’s not a bad idea (FIFO, right?) . However, I have been exploring the idea of generating an ARM timer interrupt (not system timer), but I couldn’t get past the boot issue, which seems to have now been resolved.
>
> Questions: Do you see any reason why loading the vector table during the boot process will prevent interrupts from being routed to EL3 correctly? If you do not, then I think I can take it from here.
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
> From: Olivier Deprez
> Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 2:36 AM
> To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; AT&T
> Subject: Re: [TF-A] Spurious interrupt 1023
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> I guess we'll need a bit more details in order to help you.
> Which platform are you using? which GIC version is it using (looks like GICv2?) ?
> How did you built TF-A for this platform (command line arguments)?
> What is executing on your platform (e.g. linux in the non-secure world)? Is there any component in the SWd (apart from EL3 monitor) like a TEE?
> Are you trying to route the UART RX interrupt to EL3?
> Is this UART instance only owned by the SWd?
> How did you setup the interrupt handler?
> Which function are you using to read the INTID?
>
> Regards,
> Olivier.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of AT&T via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> Sent: 29 January 2021 21:08
> To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: [TF-A] Spurious interrupt 1023
>
> I asked a similar question before, but I have since made some headway concerning routing fiq interrupts to EL3. I placed an HS_DEBUG command to print the ID, which returns 1023. The RX signal on one of the attached UARTs causes a solid red light and the debug message continuously loops. When I use the functions from gicv2.h, I receive an assertion error regarding MAX_SPI_ID, but the looping stops.
>
> I think the 1023 ID suggests non-secure is receiving a secure interrupt OR I’m dealing with a possible race condition. Any thoughts? Should I attach my code?
>
>
>
> Ian Burres
> Cybersecurity R&D
>
>
> --
> TF-A mailing list
> TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
>
>
I have seen same thing in your previous thread also, could you please confirm that the build option GICV2_G0_FOR_EL3 instead of GICV2_GO_FOR_EL3 (zero instead of "O").
________________________________
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Ian Burres via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 02 February 2021 21:03
To: Olivier Deprez <Olivier.Deprez(a)arm.com>; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: Re: [TF-A] Spurious interrupt 1023
UPDATE: I managed to get the Pi to complete the boot process, which is a major hurdle I have been trying to overcome.
As for your questions Olivier:
The vector table is loaded during bl31 (its called in the bl31_main.c main() function, right after bl31_platform_setup()). The Pi 4B uses GICv2 (your assumption was correct) and the BCM2711 chip.
Right now both my irq and fiq handlers use: ID = gicv2_get_pending_interrupt_id(); to read the INTID.
Neither handler does anything else other than print the ID, which returns 1023 for fiq only, using HS_DEBUG(). Nothing returns for irq.
Build options are: PLAT=rpi4 DEBUG=1 LOG_LEVEL=50 RUNTIME_UART=2 GICV2_GO_FOR_EL3=1
Wasn’t trying to route the UART RX interrupt to EL3, though that’s not a bad idea (FIFO, right?) . However, I have been exploring the idea of generating an ARM timer interrupt (not system timer), but I couldn’t get past the boot issue, which seems to have now been resolved.
Questions: Do you see any reason why loading the vector table during the boot process will prevent interrupts from being routed to EL3 correctly? If you do not, then I think I can take it from here.
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Olivier Deprez<mailto:Olivier.Deprez@arm.com>
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 2:36 AM
To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; AT&T<mailto:iburres@att.net>
Subject: Re: [TF-A] Spurious interrupt 1023
Hi Ian,
I guess we'll need a bit more details in order to help you.
Which platform are you using? which GIC version is it using (looks like GICv2?) ?
How did you built TF-A for this platform (command line arguments)?
What is executing on your platform (e.g. linux in the non-secure world)? Is there any component in the SWd (apart from EL3 monitor) like a TEE?
Are you trying to route the UART RX interrupt to EL3?
Is this UART instance only owned by the SWd?
How did you setup the interrupt handler?
Which function are you using to read the INTID?
Regards,
Olivier.
________________________________________
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of AT&T via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 29 January 2021 21:08
To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [TF-A] Spurious interrupt 1023
I asked a similar question before, but I have since made some headway concerning routing fiq interrupts to EL3. I placed an HS_DEBUG command to print the ID, which returns 1023. The RX signal on one of the attached UARTs causes a solid red light and the debug message continuously loops. When I use the functions from gicv2.h, I receive an assertion error regarding MAX_SPI_ID, but the looping stops.
I think the 1023 ID suggests non-secure is receiving a secure interrupt OR I’m dealing with a possible race condition. Any thoughts? Should I attach my code?
Ian Burres
Cybersecurity R&D
--
TF-A mailing list
TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
Hi Ian,
I guess we'll need a bit more details in order to help you.
Which platform are you using? which GIC version is it using (looks like GICv2?) ?
How did you built TF-A for this platform (command line arguments)?
What is executing on your platform (e.g. linux in the non-secure world)? Is there any component in the SWd (apart from EL3 monitor) like a TEE?
Are you trying to route the UART RX interrupt to EL3?
Is this UART instance only owned by the SWd?
How did you setup the interrupt handler?
Which function are you using to read the INTID?
Regards,
Olivier.
________________________________________
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of AT&T via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 29 January 2021 21:08
To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [TF-A] Spurious interrupt 1023
I asked a similar question before, but I have since made some headway concerning routing fiq interrupts to EL3. I placed an HS_DEBUG command to print the ID, which returns 1023. The RX signal on one of the attached UARTs causes a solid red light and the debug message continuously loops. When I use the functions from gicv2.h, I receive an assertion error regarding MAX_SPI_ID, but the looping stops.
I think the 1023 ID suggests non-secure is receiving a secure interrupt OR I’m dealing with a possible race condition. Any thoughts? Should I attach my code?
Ian Burres
Cybersecurity R&D
--
TF-A mailing list
TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
I asked a similar question before, but I have since made some headway concerning routing fiq interrupts to EL3. I placed an HS_DEBUG command to print the ID, which returns 1023. The RX signal on one of the attached UARTs causes a solid red light and the debug message continuously loops. When I use the functions from gicv2.h, I receive an assertion error regarding MAX_SPI_ID, but the looping stops.
I think the 1023 ID suggests non-secure is receiving a secure interrupt OR I’m dealing with a possible race condition. Any thoughts? Should I attach my code?
Ian Burres
Cybersecurity R&D
Hi Bin Wu,
Thanks for coming up with this question.
As per the below signature verification code, you raised a valid point that signature gets verified before ROTPK hash verification.
1. Get ROTPK hash from the platform (Using platform implemented method e.g., HW register).
2. Extract ROTPK from the image itself.
3. Use ROTPK to verify the image signature.
4. Calculate the hash of ROTPK and compare it against the hash received in step[1].
But we can't see any concern as the system fails to boot anyways at step [4] if the ROTPK gets corrupted.
Regards
Manish Badarkhe
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of 吴斌(郅隆) via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Date: Friday, 29 January 2021 at 07:55
To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [TF-A] PK hash verify after signature virified
Hi All,
I am studying tbbr module in ATF recenlty. I have a little confusion about the ROTPK hash verify flow.
In ATF current implementation, we will verify the signature first, then verify the ROTPK hash.
But in my understanding, we should verify ROTPK first then verify signature.
So, what is the consideration that we use current flow in ATF?
Thanks for you patience
BRs,
Bin Wu
Hi All,
I am studying tbbr module in ATF recenlty. I have a little confusion about the ROTPK hash verify flow.
In ATF current implementation, we will verify the signature first, then verify the ROTPK hash.
But in my understanding, we should verify ROTPK first then verify signature.
So, what is the consideration that we use current flow in ATF?
Thanks for you patience
BRs,
Bin Wu
Hi All,
The next TF-A Tech Forum is scheduled for Thu 28th January 2021 16:00 – 17:00 (GMT).
Agenda:
* TF-A: Automotive Enhance (AE) Architecture Support Requirements Discussion
* Presented by Manish Pandy and Manish Badarkhe
* A discussion on the needs for the Automotive Enhance (AE) space and how TF-A can support that with CPU and GIC capabilities. The goal is to follow-up the recent email to the TF-A mailing list and try and understand project needs in this space by talking to the project community.
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: 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 on the TF-A mailing list.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/9159704974<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fzoom.us%2Fj%2F9159704974&sa=D&us…>
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<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fzoom.us%2Fu%2Fad27hc6t7h&sa=D&us…>
Thanks
Joanna
<Cc alias>
I guess, something went wrong when I clicked "Reply all" the first time.
Manish, can you also talk about the tasks that Arm is willing to work on? Then we can ask for volunteers for the remaining ones. I'm sure, NVIDIA will contribute as this topic is close to our heart.
-Varun
From: Manish Pandey2 <Manish.Pandey2(a)arm.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 8:05 AM
To: Varun Wadekar <vwadekar(a)nvidia.com>
Cc: Filipe Rinaldi <Filipe.Rinaldi(a)arm.com>; Robin Randhawa <Robin.Randhawa(a)ARM.com>; Ed Doxat <Ed.Doxat(a)arm.com>; Joanna Farley <joannafarley(a)icloud.com>; Manish Badarkhe <Manish.Badarkhe(a)arm.com>; Olivier Deprez <Olivier.Deprez(a)arm.com>; Matteo Carlini <Matteo.Carlini(a)arm.com>; Doug Richmond <Doug.Richmond(a)arm.com>
Subject: Re: Gather GIC changes required for safety critical machines
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
++ Other Arm folks
Just realized that Varun has reduced the recipients(guess that was intentional)
________________________________
From: Manish Pandey2 <Manish.Pandey2(a)arm.com<mailto:Manish.Pandey2@arm.com>>
Sent: 25 January 2021 10:15
To: Varun Wadekar <vwadekar(a)nvidia.com<mailto:vwadekar@nvidia.com>>
Cc: Filipe Rinaldi <Filipe.Rinaldi(a)arm.com<mailto:Filipe.Rinaldi@arm.com>>; Robin Randhawa <Robin.Randhawa(a)ARM.com<mailto:Robin.Randhawa@ARM.com>>; Ed Doxat <Ed.Doxat(a)arm.com<mailto:Ed.Doxat@arm.com>>
Subject: Re: Gather GIC changes required for safety critical machines
Hi Varun,
We are trying to do both, based on interest from community we will prioritize these tasks.
The reason why we can't do all the asks (mentioned in the list) ourselves is, currently we do not have "use cases/platforms" to test all the features, so we would rely on wider community to understand the requirements and work together to develop/test those features.
Thanks
Manish
________________________________
From: Varun Wadekar <vwadekar(a)nvidia.com<mailto:vwadekar@nvidia.com>>
Sent: 22 January 2021 17:46
To: Manish Pandey2 <Manish.Pandey2(a)arm.com<mailto:Manish.Pandey2@arm.com>>
Cc: Filipe Rinaldi <Filipe.Rinaldi(a)arm.com<mailto:Filipe.Rinaldi@arm.com>>; Robin Randhawa <Robin.Randhawa(a)ARM.com<mailto:Robin.Randhawa@ARM.com>>; Ed Doxat <Ed.Doxat(a)arm.com<mailto:Ed.Doxat@arm.com>>
Subject: RE: Gather GIC changes required for safety critical machines
HI Manish,
Thanks for starting this discussion. The list captures all the functionalities that are useful and interesting to us.
Trying to understand the ask - are you trying to get feedback to allow you to prioritize the feature list? Or are you asking for the community to rate importance of these requirements?
I am afraid, if there isn't enough interest the list might be trimmed which would be an absolute shame.
-Varun
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-a-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Manish Pandey2 via TF-A
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 8:02 AM
To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Cc: Filipe Rinaldi <Filipe.Rinaldi(a)arm.com<mailto:Filipe.Rinaldi@arm.com>>; Robin Randhawa <Robin.Randhawa(a)ARM.com<mailto:Robin.Randhawa@ARM.com>>; Ed Doxat <Ed.Doxat(a)arm.com<mailto:Ed.Doxat@arm.com>>
Subject: [TF-A] Gather GIC changes required for safety critical machines
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
Hi,
GIC600-AE is variant of GIC for safety critical machines, though its TRM is publicly available from quite some time but currently we do not have support in TF-A.
Purpose of this email is to kick start discussions around various possible GIC requirements as far as safety critical machines are concerned.
We have created following list of requirements based on inputs we got so far, changes are either adding new AE features or enhancements to existing drivers.
GIC-600AE feature requirement:
- Inject and detect RAS errors using Fault management unit(FMU)
- Validating feature parity with GIC600
- Running GIC IP in Dual core Lock-step(DCLS) mode.
GIC/RAS driver enhancements:
- Read trace and PMU records
- Keep RAS error records alive across a reset
- Disable GICR frames of fused-off cores
- Support for message signalled interrupts
- Saving/Restoring additional GIC registers during PM events
Feel free to add any additional requirements.
If there is enough community interest during the next Tech-forum meeting(28th Jan) we would like to go through these requirements in more detail.
Thanks
Manish
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
v9: - cosmetic changes (move if from patch2 to patch3, rename function name
and define).
v8: - use gpio 0 and 1, align dtb with kernel gpio-restart, gpio-poweroff,
change define names, trigger on upper front. (Peter Maydell).
v7: - same as v6, but resplit patches: patch 2 no function changes and refactor
gpio setup for virt platfrom and patch 3 adds secure gpio.
v6: - 64k align gpio memory region (Andrew Jones)
- adjusted memory region to map this address in the corresponding atf patch
v5: - removed vms flag, added fdt (Andrew Jones)
- added patch3 to combine secure and non secure pl061. It has to be
more easy to review if this changes are in the separate patch.
v4: rework patches accodring to Peter Maydells comments:
- split patches on gpio-pwr driver and arm-virt integration.
- start secure gpio only from virt-6.0.
- rework qemu interface for gpio-pwr to use 2 named gpio.
- put secure gpio to secure name space.
v3: added missed include qemu/log.h for qemu_log(..
v2: replace printf with qemu_log (Philippe Mathieu-Daudé)
This patch works together with ATF patch:
https://github.com/muvarov/arm-trusted-firmware/commit/886965bddb0624bdf851…
Maxim Uvarov (3):
hw: gpio: implement gpio-pwr driver for qemu reset/poweroff
arm-virt: refactor gpios creation
arm-virt: add secure pl061 for reset/power down
hw/arm/Kconfig | 1 +
hw/arm/virt.c | 111 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
hw/gpio/Kconfig | 3 ++
hw/gpio/gpio_pwr.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
hw/gpio/meson.build | 1 +
include/hw/arm/virt.h | 2 +
6 files changed, 167 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 hw/gpio/gpio_pwr.c
--
2.17.1
Hi,
GIC600-AE is variant of GIC for safety critical machines, though its TRM is publicly available from quite some time but currently we do not have support in TF-A.
Purpose of this email is to kick start discussions around various possible GIC requirements as far as safety critical machines are concerned.
We have created following list of requirements based on inputs we got so far, changes are either adding new AE features or enhancements to existing drivers.
GIC-600AE feature requirement:
- Inject and detect RAS errors using Fault management unit(FMU)
- Validating feature parity with GIC600
- Running GIC IP in Dual core Lock-step(DCLS) mode.
GIC/RAS driver enhancements:
- Read trace and PMU records
- Keep RAS error records alive across a reset
- Disable GICR frames of fused-off cores
- Support for message signalled interrupts
- Saving/Restoring additional GIC registers during PM events
Feel free to add any additional requirements.
If there is enough community interest during the next Tech-forum meeting(28th Jan) we would like to go through these requirements in more detail.
Thanks
Manish
v8: - use gpio 0 and 1, align dtb with kernel gpio-restart, gpio-poweroff,
change define names, trigger on upper front. (Peter Maydell).
v7: - same as v6, but resplit patches: patch 2 no function changes and refactor
gpio setup for virt platfrom and patch 3 adds secure gpio.
v6: - 64k align gpio memory region (Andrew Jones)
- adjusted memory region to map this address in the corresponding atf patch
v5: - removed vms flag, added fdt (Andrew Jones)
- added patch3 to combine secure and non secure pl061. It has to be
more easy to review if this changes are in the separate patch.
v4: rework patches accodring to Peter Maydells comments:
- split patches on gpio-pwr driver and arm-virt integration.
- start secure gpio only from virt-6.0.
- rework qemu interface for gpio-pwr to use 2 named gpio.
- put secure gpio to secure name space.
v3: added missed include qemu/log.h for qemu_log(..
v2: replace printf with qemu_log (Philippe Mathieu-Daudé)
This patch works together with ATF patch:
https://github.com/muvarov/arm-trusted-firmware/commit/886965bddb0624bdf851…
Maxim Uvarov (3):
hw: gpio: implement gpio-pwr driver for qemu reset/poweroff
arm-virt: refactor gpios creation
arm-virt: add secure pl061 for reset/power down
hw/arm/Kconfig | 1 +
hw/arm/virt.c | 111 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
hw/gpio/Kconfig | 3 ++
hw/gpio/gpio_pwr.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
hw/gpio/meson.build | 1 +
include/hw/arm/virt.h | 2 +
6 files changed, 167 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 hw/gpio/gpio_pwr.c
--
2.17.1
v7: - same as v6, but resplit patches: patch 2 no function changes and refactor
gpio setup for virt platfrom and patch 3 adds secure gpio.
v6: - 64k align gpio memory region (Andrew Jones)
- adjusted memory region to map this address in the corresponding atf patch
v5: - removed vms flag, added fdt (Andrew Jones)
- added patch3 to combine secure and non secure pl061. It has to be
more easy to review if this changes are in the separate patch.
v4: rework patches accodring to Peter Maydells comments:
- split patches on gpio-pwr driver and arm-virt integration.
- start secure gpio only from virt-6.0.
- rework qemu interface for gpio-pwr to use 2 named gpio.
- put secure gpio to secure name space.
v3: added missed include qemu/log.h for qemu_log(..
v2: replace printf with qemu_log (Philippe Mathieu-Daudé)
This patch works together with ATF patch:
https://github.com/muvarov/arm-trusted-firmware/commit/7556d07e87f755c602cd…
Previus discussion for reboot issue was here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg757705.html
Maxim Uvarov (3):
hw: gpio: implement gpio-pwr driver for qemu reset/poweroff
arm-virt: refactor gpios creation
arm-virt: add secure pl061 for reset/power down
hw/arm/Kconfig | 1 +
hw/arm/virt.c | 117 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
hw/gpio/Kconfig | 3 ++
hw/gpio/gpio_pwr.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
hw/gpio/meson.build | 1 +
include/hw/arm/virt.h | 2 +
6 files changed, 174 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 hw/gpio/gpio_pwr.c
--
2.17.1
v6: - 64k align gpio memory region (Andrew Jones)
- adjusted memory region to map this address in the corresponding atf patch
v5: - removed vms flag, added fdt (Andrew Jones)
- added patch3 to combine secure and non secure pl061. It has to be
more easy to review if this changes are in the separate patch.
v4: rework patches accodring to Peter Maydells comments:
- split patches on gpio-pwr driver and arm-virt integration.
- start secure gpio only from virt-6.0.
- rework qemu interface for gpio-pwr to use 2 named gpio.
- put secure gpio to secure name space.
v3: added missed include qemu/log.h for qemu_log(..
v2: replace printf with qemu_log (Philippe Mathieu-Daudé)
This patch works together with ATF patch:
https://github.com/muvarov/arm-trusted-firmware/commit/7556d07e87f755c602cd…
Previus discussion for reboot issue was here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg757705.html
Maxim Uvarov (3):
hw: gpio: implement gpio-pwr driver for qemu reset/poweroff
arm-virt: add secure pl061 for reset/power down
arm-virt: combine code for secure and non secure pl061
hw/arm/Kconfig | 1 +
hw/arm/virt.c | 118 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
hw/gpio/Kconfig | 3 ++
hw/gpio/gpio_pwr.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
hw/gpio/meson.build | 1 +
include/hw/arm/virt.h | 2 +
6 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 hw/gpio/gpio_pwr.c
--
2.17.1
This event has been cancelled with this note:
"Cancelled - see the mail from Joanna for more details"
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 14 Jan 2021 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://calendar.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://calendar.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
Apologies for the late notice I am cancelling this weeks TF-A Tech forum tomorrow as the subject I had hoped to get presented is not ready and I don’t have any alternative for this slot.
I will look to have something for the next session on 28th January.
Apologies for the late notice. Cancellations of the calendar invite will come from trustedformware.org as I don’t own the invite so it may not appear in your calendars until that is sent out.
Thanks
Joanna
v5: - removed vms flag, added fdt (Andrew Jones)
- added patch3 to combine secure and non secure pl061. It has to be
more easy to review if this changes are in the separate patch.
v4: rework patches accodring to Peter Maydells comments:
- split patches on gpio-pwr driver and arm-virt integration.
- start secure gpio only from virt-6.0.
- rework qemu interface for gpio-pwr to use 2 named gpio.
- put secure gpio to secure name space.
v3: added missed include qemu/log.h for qemu_log(..
v2: replace printf with qemu_log (Philippe Mathieu-Daudé)
This patch works together with ATF patch:
https://github.com/muvarov/arm-trusted-firmware/commit/dd4401d8eb8e0f3018b3…
Previus discussion for reboot issue was here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg757705.html
Maxim Uvarov (3):
hw: gpio: implement gpio-pwr driver for qemu reset/poweroff
arm-virt: add secure pl061 for reset/power down
arm-virt: combine code for secure and non secure pl061
hw/arm/Kconfig | 1 +
hw/arm/virt.c | 118 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
hw/gpio/Kconfig | 3 ++
hw/gpio/gpio_pwr.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
hw/gpio/meson.build | 1 +
include/hw/arm/virt.h | 2 +
6 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 hw/gpio/gpio_pwr.c
--
2.17.1
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 365287: Control flow issues (MISSING_BREAK)
/plat/xilinx/zynqmp/pm_service/pm_svc_main.c: 334 in pm_smc_handler()
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*** CID 365287: Control flow issues (MISSING_BREAK)
/plat/xilinx/zynqmp/pm_service/pm_svc_main.c: 334 in pm_smc_handler()
328 SMC_RET1(handle, (uint64_t)ret);
329
330 case PM_SET_MAX_LATENCY:
331 ret = pm_set_max_latency(pm_arg[0], pm_arg[1]);
332 SMC_RET1(handle, (uint64_t)ret);
333
>>> CID 365287: Control flow issues (MISSING_BREAK)
>>> The case for value "PM_GET_API_VERSION" is not terminated by a 'break' statement.
334 case PM_GET_API_VERSION:
335 /* Check is PM API version already verified */
336 if (pm_ctx.api_version >= PM_VERSION) {
337 if (!ipi_irq_flag) {
338 /*
339 * Enable IPI IRQ
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P…
Hi
To understand the interrupt handling in TF-A, i recommend you go through https://trustedfirmware-a.readthedocs.io/en/latest/design/interrupt-framewo…
To debug your problem, you need to first check if the timer interrupt is generated as FIQ and check whether it indeed is trapped in EL3 (checking SCR_EL3.FIQ=1).
Regarding build errors while adding .S files and your assembly implementation, it will be better if you share your code (may be pushing a patch on https://review.trustedfirmware.org).
Thanks
Manish
________________________________
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Ian Burres via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 06 January 2021 17:56
To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [TF-A] Routing FIQ timer interrupts to EL3 on Raspberry Pi 4B
I am attempting to route FIQ timer interrupts using the ARM timers (not system timers) to EL3 in order to achieve introspection. I am running TF-A (cross compiled for AArch64/AArch32) on a Raspberry Pi 4B, which uses the Broadcom 2711 chipset. I have written some code, but I am not an embedded software engineer – I’m an IoT pentester. The ARM timers look like this:
RPI4_ARM_TIMER_LOAD 0x400
RPI4_ARM_TIMER_VALUE 0x404
…..
RPI4_ARM_TIMER_FREE_COUNTER 0x420
System timers are:
RPI4_SYS_TIMER_CLO, RPI4_SYS_TIMER_CS, etc…
I have successfully implement a Linux driver that allows me to dump kernel page tables and memory; however, I cannot see user page tables (even after running a CPU intensive program ). I believe the only way to view user page tables is to have interrupts routed to EL3 – a Linux driver is not sufficient. I have 3 UARTs attached with a debug log and screen setup. From what I have read, the Raspberry Pi 4B uses GICv2. TF-A supports EL3 routing when the build option GICV2_GO_FOR_EL3 is enabled, which I have done.
>From what I have gathered, the FIQ interrupt has to be written in assembly. So far, I have created a vector table, loaded the vector table, and masked and unmasked interrupts using daifclr, #3 and daifset, #3 instructions, using inline assembly. The timer is initinitialized and handled using C functions. I am using inline assembly, because I am adding code to the TF-A base, and I have not discovered how to add .S files to the build without receiving make errors. I will gladly share the code I have if it helps, but what I am really looking for is if anyone believes I am on the right track or not. Obviously, I am not implementing something correctly since the interrupt is not being handled. Thanks.
Thomas
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
I am attempting to route FIQ timer interrupts using the ARM timers (not system timers) to EL3 in order to achieve introspection. I am running TF-A (cross compiled for AArch64/AArch32) on a Raspberry Pi 4B, which uses the Broadcom 2711 chipset. I have written some code, but I am not an embedded software engineer – I’m an IoT pentester. The ARM timers look like this:
RPI4_ARM_TIMER_LOAD 0x400
RPI4_ARM_TIMER_VALUE 0x404
…..
RPI4_ARM_TIMER_FREE_COUNTER 0x420
System timers are:
RPI4_SYS_TIMER_CLO, RPI4_SYS_TIMER_CS, etc…
I have successfully implement a Linux driver that allows me to dump kernel page tables and memory; however, I cannot see user page tables (even after running a CPU intensive program ). I believe the only way to view user page tables is to have interrupts routed to EL3 – a Linux driver is not sufficient. I have 3 UARTs attached with a debug log and screen setup. >From what I have read, the Raspberry Pi 4B uses GICv2. TF-A supports EL3 routing when the build option GICV2_GO_FOR_EL3 is enabled, which I have done.
>From what I have gathered, the FIQ interrupt has to be written in assembly. So far, I have created a vector table, loaded the vector table, and masked and unmasked interrupts using daifclr, #3 and daifset, #3 instructions, using inline assembly. The timer is initinitialized and handled using C functions. I am using inline assembly, because I am adding code to the TF-A base, and I have not discovered how to add .S files to the build without receiving make errors. I will gladly share the code I have if it helps, but what I am really looking for is if anyone believes I am on the right track or not. Obviously, I am not implementing something correctly since the interrupt is not being handled. Thanks.
Thomas
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Hi Carlo
Alexei created a patch for testing TF-A/TFTF builds with the toolchain GCC 10.2-2020.11
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/ci/tf-a-ci-scripts/+/7733
which flagged build errors for plat/amlogic/axg platform, please see below:
Build command lines:
make CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-none-elf- PLAT=axg SPD=opteed DEBUG=1 V=1 fiptool all
make AML_USE_ATOS=1 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-none-elf- PLAT=axg DEBUG=1 V=1 fiptool all
plat/amlogic/axg/axg_pm.c: In function 'axg_pwr_domain_off':
plat/amlogic/axg/axg_pm.c:124:43: error: array subscript 2 is above array bounds of 'const plat_local_state_t[2]' {aka 'const unsigned char[2]'} [-Werror=array-bounds]
124 | if (target_state->pwr_domain_state[MPIDR_AFFLVL2] ==
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from plat/amlogic/axg/axg_pm.c:14:
include/lib/psci/psci.h:270:28: note: while referencing 'pwr_domain_state'
270 | plat_local_state_t pwr_domain_state[PLAT_MAX_PWR_LVL + U(1)];
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
Makefile:1103: recipe for target '/work/workspace/workspace/tf-worker/trusted_firmware/build/axg/debug/bl31/axg_pm.o' failed
make: *** [/work/workspace/workspace/tf-worker/trusted_firmware/build/axg/debug/bl31/axg_pm.o] Error 1
Please help to resolve this issue.
Thanks
Manish Badarkhe
Hi Feng,
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 04:41:37PM +0000, Chen Feng via TF-A wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While reading the Arm Firmware Framework for Armv8-A
> https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0077/latest
>
> I do not find the API that for a sp to request vIRQ, or do I miss something.
>
> Is this some private API that is implementing defined FF-A IDs?
Is what you have in mind is an ABI that allows SP0 to raise an interrupt in SP1?
Could you please provide more information about your use case?
cheers,
Achin
>
>
> --
> cheers,
> feng
>
> --
> TF-A mailing list
> TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
Hi all,
I have a similar but different question here :)
Why not the tf-a support both smpd and tspd.
Since the vendor's teeos that has not support ff-a interface currently.
With armv8.4-sel2, is there a choice to disable scr.eel2 with origin
vendor's theeos IDs, and enable scr.eel2 with new ff-a services?
It seems to need some tlb maintenance, but it seems work.
On 2020/11/23 3:27 下午, Achin Gupta via TF-A wrote:
> Hi Heyi,
>
> Happy to discuss the detail but the short answer is no.
>
> Instead, it is possible to run an MM partition in S-EL0 under the TEE. This work is being done with OP-TEE.
>
> From a SW architecture standpoint, it did not seem like a good idea to let EL3 run its "application" i.e. MM SP alongside a TEE which also runs its own applications. It is better to let the TEE own S-EL1 and run all applications in S-EL0 under it.
>
> Cheers,
> Achin
>
> On 23/11/2020, 05:36, "TF-A on behalf of Heyi Guo via TF-A" <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> On some platforms there may be requirements to run both TEE and SPM_MM
> instances, such as providing TEE services on server platforms.
>
> Do TF-A support this scenario? If it doesn't, do it make sense to add
> such support?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Heyi
>
> --
> TF-A mailing list
> TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
>
--
cheers,
feng
Hi,
While reading the Arm Firmware Framework for Armv8-A
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0077/latest
I do not find the API that for a sp to request vIRQ, or do I miss something.
Is this some private API that is implementing defined FF-A IDs?
--
cheers,
feng
Hi All,
The next TF-A Tech Forum is scheduled for Thu 17th December 2020 16:00 – 17:00 (GMT).
As well as being posted to the TF-A mailing list this has been cross posted to OPTEE mailing list. For OPTEE attendees the Zoom call details are included below.
Agenda:
* An introduction to the Trusted Services project
* Presented by Julian Hall
* Summary
* The Trusted Services project is a new trustedfirmware.org project that provides a home for security related service components that can run in the different isolated processing environments available on Arm Cortex-A. The project attempts to promote reuse and standardization to enable a consistent set of services to be provided by firmware, independent of which isolation technology is used.
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.
This is the last TF-A Tech Forum session until January 2021.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/9159704974<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fzoom.us%2Fj%2F9159704974&sa=D&us…>
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<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fzoom.us%2Fu%2Fad27hc6t7h&sa=D&us…>
Thanks
Joanna
Hello Masato Fukumori,
To check a "validity period" of a X 509 certificate,
you must be sure that your system date & time is set, correct and not changed.
Do you have a reliable way to achieve this?
Best regards,
Andrej Butok
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of fukumori.masato--- via TF-A
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 2:23 PM
To: 'tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [TF-A] Question about validity period of X509 certificate
Hello.
I have a question about checking the X 509 certificate with tf-a.
My understanding is that tf-a does not check the "validity period" of the X 509 certificate.
I 'm not sure why tf-a doesn't check. Does anyone know this background?
Best Regards,
Masato Fukumori
Hello.
I have a question about checking the X 509 certificate with tf-a.
My understanding is that tf-a does not check the "validity period" of the X 509 certificate.
I 'm not sure why tf-a doesn't check. Does anyone know this background?
Best Regards,
Masato Fukumori
This event has been cancelled.
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 31 Dec 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://calendar.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://calendar.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
This event has been cancelled.
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 3 Dec 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://calendar.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://calendar.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
Hi Heyi,
Happy to discuss the detail but the short answer is no.
Instead, it is possible to run an MM partition in S-EL0 under the TEE. This work is being done with OP-TEE.
From a SW architecture standpoint, it did not seem like a good idea to let EL3 run its "application" i.e. MM SP alongside a TEE which also runs its own applications. It is better to let the TEE own S-EL1 and run all applications in S-EL0 under it.
Cheers,
Achin
On 23/11/2020, 05:36, "TF-A on behalf of Heyi Guo via TF-A" <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
Hi All,
On some platforms there may be requirements to run both TEE and SPM_MM
instances, such as providing TEE services on server platforms.
Do TF-A support this scenario? If it doesn't, do it make sense to add
such support?
Thanks,
Heyi
--
TF-A mailing list
TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
Hi All,
On some platforms there may be requirements to run both TEE and SPM_MM
instances, such as providing TEE services on server platforms.
Do TF-A support this scenario? If it doesn't, do it make sense to add
such support?
Thanks,
Heyi
Hi All,
The next TF-A Tech Forum is scheduled for Thu 19th November 2020 16:00 – 17:00 (GMT).
Please note UK entered Daylight Saving on 25th October when clocks went back one hour to go to GMT from 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:
* Trace-based Code Coverage Tooling for Firmware Projects
* Presented by Basil Eljuse & Saul Romero
* Summary
* TF-A has adopted a code coverage system to measure the effectiveness of the various runtime testing performed and this is achieved without doing code instrumentation. This presentation is an overview of that approach which has applicability beyond the TF-A project.
* 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
Hi All,
i've been trying for a couple of days to load current optee together with atf from the github, with no luck. For that i have been using manuals (https://trustedfirmware-a.readthedocs.io/en/latest/plat/rockchip.html , http://opensource.rock-chips.com/wiki_ATF ) for rockchip and what i have succeded is to run very old atf tag 1.3 with optee blob from rockchip which i suspect is also very old. And if i try to use any newer atf >= 1.4 than i suspect that it does not load, because i do not see any LOGS from it, no matter that LOG_LEVEL was set to 50...
Can anybody help me solving this issue or point me to some solution? Thanks in advance.
BR
Piotr Łobacz
[https://softgent.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Zasob-14.png]<https://www.softgent.com>
Softgent Sp. z o.o., Budowlanych 31d, 80-298 Gdansk, POLAND
KRS: 0000674406, NIP: 9581679801, REGON: 367090912
www.softgent.com
Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Północ w Gdańsku, VII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sądowego
KRS 0000674406, Kapitał zakładowy: 25 000,00 zł wpłacony w całości.
Hi Julius,
The TF-A build sets the `-mstrict-align` compiler option, that means that the compiler will generate only aligned accesses as default. So disabling the check at runtime, seems `unaligned` with the compiler option IMO. The programmer can induce unaligned access though, although I am struggling to understand why the programmer would want to do that. The case you have pointed out seems like an error which needs to be corrected in platform code IMO.
> Well, my assumption is that performing an unaligned access cannot be a
> vulnerability.
TF-A has linker symbol references and non-trivial linker section manipulations at runtime and these have previously triggered alignment errors when binary layout changed due to code issues. Disabling the alignment check at runtime means these errors would have remained undetected and would have resulted in more obscure crash at runtime or even a vulnerablility. In some cases, only the RELEASE builds (DEBUG=0) triggered the alignment fault.
> There are scenarios where unaligned accesses can be intentional, but I am not too worried about those -- there are ways to work around that, and if we make it policy that those accesses always need to be written that way I'm okay with that. What I am worried about is mistakes and oversights that slip through testing and then cause random or even attacker-controllable crashes in production. If the main reason you're enabling this flag is to help with early detection of coding mistakes, I wonder if the best approach would be to enable it for DEBUG=1 and disable it for DEBUG=0 (of course, if there are really security issues associated with it like you mentioned above, that wouldn't make sense).
Agree. But I am failing to understand why the unaligned accesses came to be there in the first place. My worry is, if this was not intended by the programmer, this might as well be a bug that will remain undetected if the alignment check is disabled.
Best Regards
Soby Mathew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Julius
> Werner via TF-A
> Sent: 10 November 2020 02:31
> To: raghu.ncstate(a)icloud.com
> Cc: tf-a <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> Subject: Re: [TF-A] Alignment fault checking in EL3
>
> > >>. What I am worried about is mistakes and oversights that slip
> > >>through testing and then cause random or even attacker-controllable
> > >>crashes in production
> >
> > Why would this not be the case even with SCTLR.A bit set? I'm not seeing
> the relation between the crash and SCTLR.A bit. If there are oversights that
> slip through testing and an attacker can cause a crash, there is
> vulnerability/bug.
> > If there is something that slipped through, that causes a data
> abort(perhaps address not mapped in the translation tables), would we turn
> off the MMU ?
>
> Well, my assumption is that performing an unaligned access cannot be a
> vulnerability. If you have examples to the contrary please let me know, but
> as far as I am aware letting an unaligned access through should always work
> and will always result in the behavior the programmer intended (other than
> maybe contrived cases where device address space is mapped with a non-
> Device memory type, which is already very wrong for plenty of other reasons
> and should never happen). The only negative consequence is that the access
> may take slightly longer than if it were aligned. I do understand the desire to
> be able to shake out unaligned accesses during development and testing
>
> I don't think the comparison to a data abort works because obviously with a
> data abort the program usually can't just continue and still assume its internal
> state is valid.
Cross-posting on the TF-A mailing list too for interested people to attend the kickoff meeting listed below hosted by Linaro.
Thanks
Matteo
-----Original Message-----
From: Linaro-open-discussions <linaro-open-discussions-bounces(a)op-lists.linaro.org> On Behalf Of Ulf Hansson via Linaro-open-discussions
Sent: 10 November 2020 10:21
To: linaro-open-discussions(a)op-lists.linaro.org
Subject: [Linaro-open-discussions] Kickoff: Extend PSCI with OS-initiated mode in TF-A
Hi all,
As previously announced we are hosting a kickoff meeting for the above topic/project.
The meeting has been added to the linaro-open-discussions calendar, according to the below. Feel free to join us on Thursday this week!
Kind regards
Ulf Hansson, Linaro KWG
When:
Thursday Nov 12, 16:00-17:00 CET.
Agenda:
1. Introduction.
2. Update of the current support in Linux.
3. Collaborations.
4. Technical things.
5. Other matters.
To join the Zoom Meeting:
https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/97261221687
Meeting ID: 972 6122 1687
One tap mobile
+13462487799,,97261221687# US (Houston)
+16465588656,,97261221687# US (New York)
Dial by your location
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
Meeting ID: 972 6122 1687
Find your local number: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/u/acg3UrpmdE
--
Linaro-open-discussions mailing list
https://collaborate.linaro.org/display/LOD/Linaro+Open+Discussions+Homehttps://op-lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-open-discussions
> >>. What I am worried about is mistakes and
> >>oversights that slip through testing and then cause random or even
> >>attacker-controllable crashes in production
>
> Why would this not be the case even with SCTLR.A bit set? I'm not seeing the relation between the crash and SCTLR.A bit. If there are oversights that slip through testing and an attacker can cause a crash, there is vulnerability/bug.
> If there is something that slipped through, that causes a data abort(perhaps address not mapped in the translation tables), would we turn off the MMU ?
Well, my assumption is that performing an unaligned access cannot be a
vulnerability. If you have examples to the contrary please let me
know, but as far as I am aware letting an unaligned access through
should always work and will always result in the behavior the
programmer intended (other than maybe contrived cases where device
address space is mapped with a non-Device memory type, which is
already very wrong for plenty of other reasons and should never
happen). The only negative consequence is that the access may take
slightly longer than if it were aligned. I do understand the desire to
be able to shake out unaligned accesses during development and
testing, but at least in a production build I think taking that
performance hit would always be preferable to a crash.
I don't think the comparison to a data abort works because obviously
with a data abort the program usually can't just continue and still
assume its internal state is valid.
Hi Julius,
A lot of the rationale for the default initialization is not listed in the documentation and I do think perhaps we can do better as at the end of the day it’s decisions around platform ports and how they are going to be deployed in products that may influence decisions here for changing the defaults.
Your thoughts around attacker control able crashes are a valid one. I don’t think any one setting is all pros with no cons and platform providers need to make decisions but I think the default code with the settings is more likely to flush out alignment bugs and although I don’t have specific examples any bug could play a part in future vulnerability so best to flush them out rather than lie hidden.
It could be said that in the reference implementation a known crash may be better than a more nebulous unknown behaviour that could come with an undetected bug that could later be taken advantage of.
The use a DEBUG flag is an idea but we have all seen debug builds not operating like production builds so the value may be lost here.
It’s why on reviewing our documentation on seeing your post I think we could do better to explain the rationale for the settings in TF-A so platform owners can be better informed and override default settings if they really feel they have the need.
Cheers
Joanna
________________________________
From: Julius Werner
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 10:42 PM
To: Joanna Farley
Cc: raghu.ncstate(a)icloud.com; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [TF-A] Alignment fault checking in EL3
Hi Joanna,
Thank you for your detailed response. I was mostly wondering if this
was a deliberate choice or just something someone wrote this way once
and nobody ever thought about again. Since it sounds like it is
intentional, I'll try to understand your rationale better.
> Maintaining these settings in production is also advised as best practice as it is known any such defects can possibly play a part in allowing an actor to take advantage of the defect as part of a vulnerability and memory related defects in particular can be taken advantage of. So it seems prudent to guard against them.
I'm curious, can you elaborate on that? I can't really think of a
scenario where lack of alignment checking can really make code behave
in an unintentional way. (I don't think Raghu's scenario of accessing
MMIO registers works because those registers should be mapped with a
Device memory type anyway, and that memory type enforces aligned
accesses regardless of the SCTLR.A flag.) If there truly are security
concerns with this I can understand your approach much better.
> Saying all this for those few cases where unaligned accesses are correct and intentional we could look to define better ways to handle these and provide that in reference code as an option to try and get the best for robustness and debuggability which seemed a big part of the concern in your post. Team members in Arm have ideas on how that could be provided but it needs broader discussion on the implications for security and performance before taking forward.
There are scenarios where unaligned accesses can be intentional, but I
am not too worried about those -- there are ways to work around that,
and if we make it policy that those accesses always need to be written
that way I'm okay with that. What I am worried about is mistakes and
oversights that slip through testing and then cause random or even
attacker-controllable crashes in production. If the main reason you're
enabling this flag is to help with early detection of coding mistakes,
I wonder if the best approach would be to enable it for DEBUG=1 and
disable it for DEBUG=0 (of course, if there are really security issues
associated with it like you mentioned above, that wouldn't make
sense).
Hi Julius,
Talking to the team here its has always been felt it is best practise to forbid unaligned data accesses in Arm's embedded projects. That's the reason TF-A also enforces the build options: -mno-unaligned-access (AArch32) and -mstrict-align (AArch64). In the TF-A documentation [1] SCTLR_EL3.A and other settings are listed in the Architectural Initialisation section.
There is thought to be only a few cases where unaligned access are correct and intentional and most are defects that should be caught early and not in production and as such it is better to detect unaligned data access conditions early in a platform porting, rather than in the field especially if there is no firmware update capability. Alignment faults should be treated as fatal as they should never happen in production when components have been designed as such from the beginning. Maintaining these settings in production is also advised as best practice as it is known any such defects can possibly play a part in allowing an actor to take advantage of the defect as part of a vulnerability and memory related defects in particular can be taken advantage of. So it seems prudent to guard against them.
We can of course provide better rationalisation based on the above in our documentation to provide platforms porting efforts better guidance. It is after all up to partners in their platform ports to make appropriate decisions for their ports where settings could be changed however the upstreamed reference code should follow the settings we have which are felt to be best practices for TF-A.
It is known other projects follow other practices and that is fine if that works for them. Once a project enables unaligned accesses, it's very hard to go back again since it's likely that code that does unaligned accesses will slowly get added to the project. However for TF-A maintaining the current settings is felt to be the best approach when weighing up the costs and benefits.
Saying all this for those few cases where unaligned accesses are correct and intentional we could look to define better ways to handle these and provide that in reference code as an option to try and get the best for robustness and debuggability which seemed a big part of the concern in your post. Team members in Arm have ideas on how that could be provided but it needs broader discussion on the implications for security and performance before taking forward.
Thanks
Joanna
[1] https://trustedfirmware-a.readthedocs.io/en/latest/design/firmware-design.h…
On 09/11/2020, 17:47, "TF-A on behalf of Raghu Krishnamurthy via TF-A" <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
Hi Julius,
I tend to agree with your argument about not using SCTLR.A bit but I think the unexpected crashes or instability is due buggy code and insufficient validation of invariants such as aligned pointers, irrespective of whether SCTRLR.A is set or unset.
Even if we allow unaligned accesses, we could have buggy code that access registers that typically have to be size aligned and we wouldn’t catch those bugs with SCTLR.A. Worse, some hardware implementations have undefined/impdef behavior when there are unaligned access to MMIO registers for ex, in which case, I would rather take an alignment fault at the core than allow triggering of undefined behavior.
So I don’t think stability/reliability and the use of SCTLR.A bit are related. If TF-A's position is that we want to allow only aligned accesses in EL3(for whatever reason, I can only think of efficiency), it is the code's responsibility to enforce this invariants using asserts or explicit checks.
>> I am still wondering why we choose to set the SCTLR_EL3.A
I think this is the relevant question. If there are good security reasons(which I don’t know about), I would say we should keep it. If it is for efficiency, given the way recent ARM64 cores are performing, I wouldn't have a problem with SCTLR.A=0.
Thanks
Raghu
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Julius Werner via TF-A
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 6:38 PM
To: tf-a <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [TF-A] Alignment fault checking in EL3
Hi,
I just debugged a TF-A boot crash that turned out to be caused by an alignment fault in platform code. Someone had defined some static storage space as a uint8_t array, and then accessed it by dereferencing uint16_t pointers.
Of course this is ultimately a bug in the platform code that should be fixed, but I am still wondering why we choose to set the SCTLR_EL3.A (Alignment fault checking) flag in TF-A? In an ideal world, maybe we could say that code which can generate alignment faults should not exist -- but, unfortunately, people make mistakes, and this kind of mistake may linger unnoticed for a long time in the codebase before randomly getting triggered due to subtle shifts in the binary's memory layout. (Worse, in some situations this could get affected by SMC parameters passed in from lower exception levels, so it would only be noticeable and could possibly be intentionally triggered if the lower exception level passes in just the right values.)
For that reason, most other environments I know (e.g. Linux) always keep that flag cleared. There's no harm in that -- as far as I'm aware all aarch64 cores are required to support unaligned accesses to cached memory types, and the worst that would happen is a slight performance penalty for the access. I think that flag is mostly meant as a debugging feature to be able to shake out accidental unaligned accesses from your code? If our goal is to be stable and reliable firmware, shouldn't we disable it to reduce the chance of unexpected crashes?
--
TF-A mailing list
TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
Hi Julius,
I tend to agree with your argument about not using SCTLR.A bit but I think the unexpected crashes or instability is due buggy code and insufficient validation of invariants such as aligned pointers, irrespective of whether SCTRLR.A is set or unset.
Even if we allow unaligned accesses, we could have buggy code that access registers that typically have to be size aligned and we wouldn’t catch those bugs with SCTLR.A. Worse, some hardware implementations have undefined/impdef behavior when there are unaligned access to MMIO registers for ex, in which case, I would rather take an alignment fault at the core than allow triggering of undefined behavior.
So I don’t think stability/reliability and the use of SCTLR.A bit are related. If TF-A's position is that we want to allow only aligned accesses in EL3(for whatever reason, I can only think of efficiency), it is the code's responsibility to enforce this invariants using asserts or explicit checks.
>> I am still wondering why we choose to set the SCTLR_EL3.A
I think this is the relevant question. If there are good security reasons(which I don’t know about), I would say we should keep it. If it is for efficiency, given the way recent ARM64 cores are performing, I wouldn't have a problem with SCTLR.A=0.
Thanks
Raghu
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Julius Werner via TF-A
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 6:38 PM
To: tf-a <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [TF-A] Alignment fault checking in EL3
Hi,
I just debugged a TF-A boot crash that turned out to be caused by an alignment fault in platform code. Someone had defined some static storage space as a uint8_t array, and then accessed it by dereferencing uint16_t pointers.
Of course this is ultimately a bug in the platform code that should be fixed, but I am still wondering why we choose to set the SCTLR_EL3.A (Alignment fault checking) flag in TF-A? In an ideal world, maybe we could say that code which can generate alignment faults should not exist -- but, unfortunately, people make mistakes, and this kind of mistake may linger unnoticed for a long time in the codebase before randomly getting triggered due to subtle shifts in the binary's memory layout. (Worse, in some situations this could get affected by SMC parameters passed in from lower exception levels, so it would only be noticeable and could possibly be intentionally triggered if the lower exception level passes in just the right values.)
For that reason, most other environments I know (e.g. Linux) always keep that flag cleared. There's no harm in that -- as far as I'm aware all aarch64 cores are required to support unaligned accesses to cached memory types, and the worst that would happen is a slight performance penalty for the access. I think that flag is mostly meant as a debugging feature to be able to shake out accidental unaligned accesses from your code? If our goal is to be stable and reliable firmware, shouldn't we disable it to reduce the chance of unexpected crashes?
Hi,
I just debugged a TF-A boot crash that turned out to be caused by an
alignment fault in platform code. Someone had defined some static
storage space as a uint8_t array, and then accessed it by
dereferencing uint16_t pointers.
Of course this is ultimately a bug in the platform code that should be
fixed, but I am still wondering why we choose to set the SCTLR_EL3.A
(Alignment fault checking) flag in TF-A? In an ideal world, maybe we
could say that code which can generate alignment faults should not
exist -- but, unfortunately, people make mistakes, and this kind of
mistake may linger unnoticed for a long time in the codebase before
randomly getting triggered due to subtle shifts in the binary's memory
layout. (Worse, in some situations this could get affected by SMC
parameters passed in from lower exception levels, so it would only be
noticeable and could possibly be intentionally triggered if the lower
exception level passes in just the right values.)
For that reason, most other environments I know (e.g. Linux) always
keep that flag cleared. There's no harm in that -- as far as I'm aware
all aarch64 cores are required to support unaligned accesses to cached
memory types, and the worst that would happen is a slight performance
penalty for the access. I think that flag is mostly meant as a
debugging feature to be able to shake out accidental unaligned
accesses from your code? If our goal is to be stable and reliable
firmware, shouldn't we disable it to reduce the chance of unexpected
crashes?