This event has been canceled with a note:
"Hi, Cancelling as no topic planned. Regards, Olivier. "
TF-A Tech Forum
Thursday Apr 4, 2024 ⋅ 5pm – 6pm
Central European Time - Paris
We run an open technical forum call for anyone to participate and it is not
restricted to Trusted Firmware project members. It will operate under the
guidance of the TF TSC. Feel free to forward this invite to colleagues.
Invites are via the TF-A mailing list and also published on the Trusted
Firmware website. Details are here:
https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-a-technical-forum/Trusted
Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom
Meetinghttps://linaro-org.zoom.us/my/trustedfirmware?pwd=VktXcm5MNUUyVVM4R0k3ZUtvdU84QT09
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-freeMeeting ID: 915 970
4974Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad27hc6t7h
Guests
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 email because you are an attendee on the event. To
stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event.
Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to
the organizer, be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of
their own invitation status, or modify your RSVP.
Learn more https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding
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 424695: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH)
/services/std_svc/rmmd/rmmd_main.c: 237 in rmmd_setup()
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*** CID 424695: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH)
/services/std_svc/rmmd/rmmd_main.c: 237 in rmmd_setup()
231
232 assert((shared_buf_size == SZ_4K) &&
233 ((void *)shared_buf_base != NULL));
234
235 /* Zero out and load the boot manifest at the beginning of the share area */
236 manifest = (struct rmm_manifest *)shared_buf_base;
>>> CID 424695: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH)
>>> Passing argument "manifest" of type "struct rmm_manifest *" and argument "8UL /* sizeof (manifest) */" to function "memset" is suspicious.
237 memset((void *)manifest, 0, sizeof(manifest));
238
239 rc = plat_rmmd_load_manifest(manifest);
240 if (rc != 0) {
241 ERROR("Error loading RMM Boot Manifest (%i)\n", rc);
242 return rc;
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=u001.AxU2LYlgjL6eX23u9ErQy-2…
Hi All,
Please note build option `ENABLE_FEAT_MTE` is now depcreated[1] and not handled
anymore part of TF-A since there is no setting needed in EL3 to enable MTE to be
used at EL0. However please note MTE at EL2/EL1 will require setting of
ENABLE_FEAT_MTE2 build option[2].
This is also a breaking change for platforms and downstream code that uses
MTE at EL2/EL1 without any configuration from TF-A but now SCR_EL3.ATA bit(26)
which was set unconditionally prior to this change[3] is now fixed and moved
correctly under ENABLE_FEAT_MTE2[3].
Going forward use build option `ENABLE_FEAT_MTE2` to use MTE at EL2/EL1.
--
Thanks,
Govindraj R
[1]: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22mte_fixes%22
[2]: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/27122/19/doc…
[3]: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/26891
Hi ,
I am using TF-A tests tests-single-fault.mk to inject RAS errors on AMD Xilinx platform which is cortex a-78 armv8.2 based.
With this test , I can see RAS exceptions are getting triggered at EL2 .
I want to trap this exception at EL3 and handle RAS errors further using FFH approach.
From code , I could see fvp platform using FAULT_INJECTION_SUPPORT=1 , but from documentation it is meant from ARMv8.4 .
I am following https://www.trustedfirmware.org/docs/RAS_Tech_Forum.pdf .
Another option is RAS_ALLOW_ERR_REC_ACCESS_NS , but in the pdf , for FFH it is mentioned RAS_ALLOW_ERR_REC_ACCESS_NS should be 0.
Can I be advised what should be done to trap the RAS exception at EL3 on armv8.2 cortex a78 platform ?
Regards
Amit
Hi,
Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan.
3 new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan.
New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan
Showing 3 of 3 defect(s)
** CID 424609: Parse warnings (PW.PARAM_SET_BUT_NOT_USED)
/plat/nuvoton/npcm845x/npcm845x_bl31_setup.c: 132 in ()
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*** CID 424609: Parse warnings (PW.PARAM_SET_BUT_NOT_USED)
/plat/nuvoton/npcm845x/npcm845x_bl31_setup.c: 132 in ()
126 * in BL2 & EL3 in BL1) before they are lost (potentially). This needs to be
127 * done before the MMU is initialized so that the memory layout can be used
128 * while creating page tables. BL2 has flushed this information to memory,
129 * so we are guaranteed to pick up good data.
130 *****************************************************************************/
131 void bl31_early_platform_setup2(u_register_t arg0, u_register_t arg1,
>>> CID 424609: Parse warnings (PW.PARAM_SET_BUT_NOT_USED)
>>> parameter "arg2" was set but never used
132 u_register_t arg2, u_register_t arg3)
133 {
134 arg0 = arg1 = arg2 = arg3 = 0;
135 #if RESET_TO_BL31
136 void *from_bl2 = (void *)arg0;
137 void *plat_params_from_bl2 = (void *)arg3;
** CID 424608: Integer handling issues (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
/drivers/arm/mhu/mhu_v3_x.c: 75 in mhu_v3_x_driver_init()
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*** CID 424608: Integer handling issues (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
/drivers/arm/mhu/mhu_v3_x.c: 75 in mhu_v3_x_driver_init()
69 /* Unsupported MHU version */
70 return MHU_V_3_X_ERR_UNSUPPORTED_VERSION;
71 }
72
73 /* Read the MHU Architecture Minor Revision */
74 dev->subversion =
>>> CID 424608: Integer handling issues (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
>>> "(aidr & (15U /* 0xfU << 0U */)) >> (15U /* 0xfU << 0U */)" is 0 regardless of the values of its operands. This occurs as the operand of assignment.
75 ((aidr & MHU_ARCH_MINOR_REV_MASK) >> MHU_ARCH_MINOR_REV_MASK);
76
77 /* Return error if the MHU minor revision is not 0 */
78 if (dev->subversion != MHU_MINOR_REV_3_0) {
79 /* Unsupported subversion */
80 return MHU_V_3_X_ERR_UNSUPPORTED_VERSION;
** CID 424607: Parse warnings (PW.PARAM_SET_BUT_NOT_USED)
/plat/nuvoton/npcm845x/npcm845x_bl31_setup.c: 131 in ()
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*** CID 424607: Parse warnings (PW.PARAM_SET_BUT_NOT_USED)
/plat/nuvoton/npcm845x/npcm845x_bl31_setup.c: 131 in ()
125 * Here is an opportunity to copy parameters passed by the calling EL (S-EL1
126 * in BL2 & EL3 in BL1) before they are lost (potentially). This needs to be
127 * done before the MMU is initialized so that the memory layout can be used
128 * while creating page tables. BL2 has flushed this information to memory,
129 * so we are guaranteed to pick up good data.
130 *****************************************************************************/
>>> CID 424607: Parse warnings (PW.PARAM_SET_BUT_NOT_USED)
>>> parameter "arg1" was set but never used
131 void bl31_early_platform_setup2(u_register_t arg0, u_register_t arg1,
132 u_register_t arg2, u_register_t arg3)
133 {
134 arg0 = arg1 = arg2 = arg3 = 0;
135 #if RESET_TO_BL31
136 void *from_bl2 = (void *)arg0;
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=u001.AxU2LYlgjL6eX23u9ErQy-2…
This event has been canceled with a note:
"Hi, Cancelling this instance as no topic planned. Regards, Olivier. "
TF-A Tech Forum
Thursday Mar 21, 2024 ⋅ 5pm – 6pm
Central European Time - Paris
We run an open technical forum call for anyone to participate and it is not
restricted to Trusted Firmware project members. It will operate under the
guidance of the TF TSC. Feel free to forward this invite to colleagues.
Invites are via the TF-A mailing list and also published on the Trusted
Firmware website. Details are here:
https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-a-technical-forum/Trusted
Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom
Meetinghttps://linaro-org.zoom.us/my/trustedfirmware?pwd=VktXcm5MNUUyVVM4R0k3ZUtvdU84QT09
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-freeMeeting ID: 915 970
4974Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad27hc6t7h
Guests
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 email because you are an attendee on the event. To
stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event.
Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to
the organizer, be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of
their own invitation status, or modify your RSVP.
Learn more https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding
Hi all,
I find that Arm has considered "device for realms" and purposed RME-DA
since last year. This is not only a concept but also includes some
SMMU hardware extensions (e.g., Realm Page MMIO and DPT).
Unfortunately, I only find few contents related to RME-DA in the
latest FVP user guide, and nothing in TF-A/TF-RMM.
Thus, can I ask
1. Does current FVP simulate the RME-DA?
2. Will TF-A/TF-RMM supports RME-DA recently?
Sincerely,
WANG Chenxu
Hi Olivier Deprez,
We use the SPM_MM framework mainly for read/write control of security variables. We do not want to modify the original application code at this time.
At the same time we want to add support for the new SPMD framework based code.
________________________________
Hi Baopeng,
By "code based on the SPM_MM framework" I assume you refer to a secure service running in a S-EL0 partition based on the MM protocol? If you can share this information, what kind of service is this implementing? RAS handling, secure variables, TPM back end, other? What kind of interface is needed to access the service? asynchronous with interrupts? synchronous with SMC from normal world? Another question is why do you need to collocate the SPMD if the MM implementation is already achieving the scenarios you need?
Ideally you'd want to migrate this service to run on top of:
* the EL3 FF-A SPMC https://trustedfirmware-a.readthedocs.io/en/latest/components/el3-spmc.html * or if the HW/chipset implements it, the S-EL2 FF-A SPMC https://hafnium.readthedocs.io/en/latest/secure-partition-manager/index.htm…
Knowing the kind of S-EL0 service would help narrowing the effort for a migration.
FF-A (https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0077/latest/) is a modern evolution of MM (https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0060/latest) and any functionality achieved by the MM protocol can be handled by FF-A. For example the MM_COMMUNICATE interface can be easily swapped by the FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ interface.
Regards, Olivier.
________________________________ From: baopeng (A) via TF-A tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 21 February 2024 07:10 To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-A] Re: Request for help
Hi Olivier Deprez,
We have developed code based on the SPM_MM framework and do not want to reconstruct the code. However, we want to adapt the code to the SPMD framework.
What should we do?
________________________________
Hi Baopeng,
SPM_MM is the legacy implementation for a secure partition manager relying on the MM protocol. This implementation gets deprecated in favor of FF-A based implementations (what you refer to as SPMD + SPMC). Both implementations aren't compatible and it is discouraged to attempt co-locating both. It may be more palatable and future proof to transition all your SW stack to be compliant to FF-A standard.
We may help you better if you tell a bit more about the reason for mixing both implementations in the same build.
Regards, Olivier.
________________________________ From: baopeng (A) baopeng1@huawei.commailto:baopeng1@huawei.com Sent: 20 February 2024 02:19 To: tf-a-owner(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org tf-a-owner@lists.trustedfirmware.orgmailto:tf-a-owner@lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Request for help
Dear Sir/ Madam,
we need to support the simultaneous loading of SPMD and SPM_MM due to project reasons.
However, we notice that the makefile of SPM_MM of ATF does not support the simultaneous loading of SPMD and SPM_MM by default.
I would like to ask what is the main reason for making the current restrictions?