April 2020 - TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

Re: [TF-M] LPC55S69 support merged into master

by Thomas Törnblom

Hi Kevin, Are there any plans to add ARMCLANG as a build environment for this? If so, then I can add an IAR port as well. Going from ARMCLANG to IAR is much easier than to go from GNUARM to IAR. I have access to one of these boards so will be able to run regression tests as well. Cheers, Thomas Den 2020-04-29 kl. 15:03, skrev Kevin Townsend via TF-M: > Hi, > > Just a quick note that support for the LPC55S69 was just merged in, > allowing you to use the relatively easy to source LPCXpresso55S69-EVK > dev board: > https://www.nxp.com/products/processors-and-microcontrollers/arm-microcontr… > > Some notes on how to use this board with TF-M are visible here, > including how to update the board to use the Segger J-Link firmware > image: > https://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/platform/ext/ta… > > Samples scripts for building and flashing (which assume the J-Link > debug firmware is present) are available here: > > - > https://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/platform/ext/ta… > - > https://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/platform/ext/ta… > > If you find any issues with the board support, you can comment on the > LPC55S69 task here: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T706 > > Best regards, > Kevin Townsend > -- *Thomas Törnblom*, /Product Engineer/ IAR Systems AB Box 23051, Strandbodgatan 1 SE-750 23 Uppsala, SWEDEN Mobile: +46 76 180 17 80 Fax: +46 18 16 78 01 E-mail: thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com <mailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com> Website: www.iar.com <http://www.iar.com> Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems <http://www.twitter.com/iarsystems>

4 years, 7 months

2
1
0 0

Improve library model secure function entry points

by David Hu

Hi all, I uploaded a patch (https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/trusted-firmware-m/+/4009) to simplify/improve the entry points of secure functions in Library model. In current Library model implementation, each secure function includes the same inline entry point tfm_core_partition_request(). Actually, only the NS client check is required to be inline. The duplicated entry points cost much code size. Thus this patch extracts NS client check and make it as a simple inline function tfm_core_is_ns_client(). tfm_core_partition_request() becomes a normal function called by each secure function. Some quantitative results of code size optimization (about 3KB) are shown below: Profile Small (ConfigDefaultProfileS) is based on https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22symmetric-attest%22+(status:o… ConfigDefault + Armclang 6.10 + Release + AN521 Code RO-data RW-data ZI-data Current impl 129778 8994 272 50108 Improved 126294 8994 272 50108 ConfigDefaultProfileS + Armclang 6.10 + Release + AN521 Code RO-data RW-data ZI-data Current impl 55886 3274 200 31664 Improved 52930 3274 200 31664 Best regards, Hu Ziji

4 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] PSA Crypto failure with addition of persistent keys

by Vinay Kumar Kotegowder

Hi Raymond, There are some changes required for PSoC64 target with the recent changes from Jamie on persistent key support for test_c050 (api-tests/dev_apis/crypto/test_c050). I will be pushing changes to GitHub today. You could try them and let us know if you are still facing problem. Regards, Vinay ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of David Hu via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 8:03 AM To: Raymond Ngun <Raymond.Ngun(a)cypress.com>; Jamie Fox <Jamie.Fox(a)arm.com> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] PSA Crypto failure with addition of persistent keys Hi Raymond, Sorry for the trouble. Sorry that I cannot find a Crypto test case with index 250. Could you please share more details and error logs of this test case? Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Raymond Ngun via TF-M Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:26 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Jamie Fox <Jamie.Fox(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] PSA Crypto failure with addition of persistent keys Hi Jamie, With the addition of persistent key support, we have seen the PSA Crypto test hang at test 250. Although we originally saw this with PSoC64, I was able to reproduce this problem on a Musca-B1. Can you please have a look please? Note that the behavior is not always the same. I have 2x Musca-B1 boards and they both failed the first time I ran the PSA Crypto test suite. However, they both did not freeze on a 2nd run. Possibly a stack issue such that the behavior is dependent on what is in stack. Thank you, Ray This message and any attachments may contain confidential information from Cypress or its subsidiaries. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message. 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. 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.

4 years, 7 months

2
2
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - April 30

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The agenda of the call is: 1. introduction to a mechanism efficiency improvement by reducing 'psa_connect'/'psa_close'calls. 2. Mailing List topics discussion (optional) 3. AOB Best regards, Anton Komlev From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: 28 April 2020 07:17 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - April 30 Hi Anton, I would like to give a brief introduction for a mechanism which would improve the coding efficiency and performance for RoT Service API by avoiding 'psa_connect'/'psa_close'. BR. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 3:29 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - April 30 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, April 30 at 7:00-8:00 UTC. Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Best regards, Anton Komlev

4 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] LPC55S69 support merged into master

by Andrej Butok

Hi Kevin, Thank you very much for your successfully efforts and taking care for the TFM LPC55S69 upstream. Andrej Butok From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Kevin Townsend via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 3:04 PM To: Thomas Törnblom via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] LPC55S69 support merged into master Hi, Just a quick note that support for the LPC55S69 was just merged in, allowing you to use the relatively easy to source LPCXpresso55S69-EVK dev board: https://www.nxp.com/products/processors-and-microcontrollers/arm-microcontr…<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nxp.c…> Some notes on how to use this board with TF-M are visible here, including how to update the board to use the Segger J-Link firmware image: https://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/platform/ext/ta…<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.trust…> Samples scripts for building and flashing (which assume the J-Link debug firmware is present) are available here: - https://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/platform/ext/ta…<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.trust…> - https://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/platform/ext/ta…<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.trust…> If you find any issues with the board support, you can comment on the LPC55S69 task here: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T706<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeveloper…> Best regards, Kevin Townsend

4 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

LPC55S69 support merged into master

by Kevin Townsend

Hi, Just a quick note that support for the LPC55S69 was just merged in, allowing you to use the relatively easy to source LPCXpresso55S69-EVK dev board: https://www.nxp.com/products/processors-and-microcontrollers/arm-microcontr… Some notes on how to use this board with TF-M are visible here, including how to update the board to use the Segger J-Link firmware image: https://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/platform/ext/ta… Samples scripts for building and flashing (which assume the J-Link debug firmware is present) are available here: - https://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/platform/ext/ta… - https://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/platform/ext/ta… If you find any issues with the board support, you can comment on the LPC55S69 task here: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T706 Best regards, Kevin Townsend

4 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Questions on TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION

by Ken Liu

Hi Reinhard, About the CMSIS documentation change, could you share us the difference to be updated? Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Reinhard Keil via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 10:54 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Questions on TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION Hi Ken, Thanks for feedback. TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION is based on https://arm-software.github.io/CMSIS_5/Core/html/group__context__trustzone_… The CMSIS documentation is misleading and I can see why you think it is easy to manage secure storage using the same interface. RTOS Thread Context Management<https://arm-software.github.io/CMSIS_5/Core/html/using_TrustZone_pg.html#RT…> relates as the name indicates to specific threads. It is used to manage the secure stack space for NS->S function calls that are directly initiated by a thread. When the same mechanism is used to protect permanent storage, it implies that this storage is always accessed by the same thread. However user applications may create/destroy threads (run a different combination of threads) which would break this protection already during run time. Moreover when you update your firmware image on the secure side, the thread IDs (module ID) are likely to change, hence a new firmware version might be unable to retrieve information that was stored by a previous version. Long story short: * I cannot see that TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION gives us a solution that works in partice. * I will request to fix the CMSIS documentation for "Thread Context Management"; make it clear that is about thread execution. In a nutshell: we should consider to remove TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION as I cannot see that it works. Reinhard

4 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] REGION_DECLARE macros

by Sherry Zhang

Hi Thomas, OK, the problem is caused by that the names of region related symbols that IRA compiler generate are different with those of ARMCLANG. The work around below do can solve the problem. BTW the work around seems not to be a general one. I think another way to solve the problem is adding a macro like SYMBOL_NAME_BASE(region) which is a wrapper of the REGION_NAME on different compilers. Regards, Sherry Zhang From: Thomas Törnblom <thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 6:28 PM To: Sherry Zhang <Sherry.Zhang2(a)arm.com>; TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] REGION_DECLARE macros Hi Sherry, Yes, I noticed that this change had been integrated and that this symbol was being used. I ran into a lot of these during the IAR port and as I said they don't work with the IAR linker. I work around this in CommonConfig.cmake by this define: --- embedded_set_target_compile_flags(TARGET ${tgt} LANGUAGE C FLAGS ${COMMON_COMPILE_FLAGS} "-DImage$$= " "-DLoad$$LR$$= " "-D$$ZI$$Base=$$Base" "-D$$ZI$$Limit=$$Limit" "-D$$RO$$Base=$$Base" "-D$$RO$$Limit=$$Limit" "-D$$RW$$Base=$$Base" "-D$$RW$$Limit=$$Limit" "-D_DATA$$RW$$Base=_DATA$$Base" "-D_DATA$$RW$$Limit=_DATA$$Limit" "-D_DATA$$ZI$$Base=_DATA$$Base" "-D_DATA$$ZI$$Limit=_DATA$$Limit" "-D_STACK$$ZI$$Base=_STACK$$Base" "-D_STACK$$ZI$$Limit=_STACK$$Limit" --- i.e. I replace $$ZI$$Base with $$Base, Image$$ and Load$$LR are removed entirely, and so on. To make this work I need to split the symbol up into its components, which is done with the REGION macros. So the symbol "Image$$ARM_LIB_STACK_MSP$$ZI$$Base" turns into "ARM_LIB_STACK_MSP$$Base", which is what we use for IAR. For ARMCLANG and GNUARM the macros generate the original symbol. Cheers, Thomas Den 2020-04-28 kl. 12:03, skrev Sherry Zhang: Hi Thomas, The diff below is caused by this patch https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/trusted-firmware-m/+/3942 . REGION_NAME is used to pasting the input parameters into a string. So there should be no difference between Image$$ARM_LIB_STACK_MSP$$ZI$$Base and REGION_NAME(Image$$, ARM_LIB_STACK_MSP, $$ZI$$Base) basing on the current implementation of REGION_NAME in file platform/include/region.h So, is there a specific REGION_NAME macro implementation for IAR compiler? Or the automatically generated region related symbols are with different names in IAR compiler? Regards, Sherry Zhang From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org><mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:58 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] REGION_DECLARE macros I have no idea what causes the crap characters in the diff below, they should be blanks. Looks like a problem with the mailing list software. Trying another type: /* Set Main Stack Pointer limit */ - extern uint32_t Image$$ARM_LIB_STACK_MSP$$ZI$$Base; - __set_MSPLIM((uint32_t)&Image$$ARM_LIB_STACK_MSP$$ZI$$Base); + REGION_DECLARE(Image$$, ARM_LIB_STACK_MSP, $$ZI$$Base); + __set_MSPLIM((uint32_t)&REGION_NAME(Image$$, ARM_LIB_STACK_MSP, + $$ZI$$Base)); Den 2020-04-28 kl. 10:51, skrev Thomas Tï¿½rnblom via TF-M: With the integration of the IAR toolchain support in TF-M it has become important to use the REGION_DECLARE/REGION_NAME macros in platform/region.h instead of using symbols like "Image$$ARM_LIB_STACK_MSP$$ZI$$Base". The IAR linker can not use these symbols and the macros in combination with the IAR specific cmake rules creates appropriate symbols for all the supported toolchains. Example diff: --- ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ /* Set Main Stack Pointer limit */ -ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ extern uint32_t Image$$ARM_LIB_STACK_MSP$$ZI$$Base; -ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ __set_MSPLIM((uint32_t)&Image$$ARM_LIB_STACK_MSP$$ZI$$Base); +ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ REGION_DECLARE(Image$$, ARM_LIB_STACK_MSP,ï¿½ $$ZI$$Base); +ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ __set_MSPLIM((uint32_t)&REGION_NAME(Image$$, ARM_LIB_STACK_MSP, +ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ $$ZI$$Base)); --- Thomas -- Thomas Tï¿½rnblom, Product Engineer IAR Systems AB Box 23051, Strandbodgatan 1 SE-750 23 Uppsala, SWEDEN Mobile: +46 76 180 17 80 Fax: +46 18 16 78 01 E-mail: thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com<mailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com> Website: www.iar.com<http://www.iar.com> Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems<http://www.twitter.com/iarsystems> -- Thomas Tï¿½rnblom, Product Engineer IAR Systems AB Box 23051, Strandbodgatan 1 SE-750 23 Uppsala, SWEDEN Mobile: +46 76 180 17 80 Fax: +46 18 16 78 01 E-mail: thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com<mailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com> Website: www.iar.com<http://www.iar.com> Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems<http://www.twitter.com/iarsystems> -- Thomas Törnblom, Product Engineer IAR Systems AB Box 23051, Strandbodgatan 1 SE-750 23 Uppsala, SWEDEN Mobile: +46 76 180 17 80 Fax: +46 18 16 78 01 E-mail: thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com<mailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com> Website: www.iar.com<http://www.iar.com> Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems<http://www.twitter.com/iarsystems>

4 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Questions on TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION

by Reinhard Keil

Hi Ken, Thanks for feedback. TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION is based on https://arm-software.github.io/CMSIS_5/Core/html/group__context__trustzone_… The CMSIS documentation is misleading and I can see why you think it is easy to manage secure storage using the same interface. RTOS Thread Context Management<https://arm-software.github.io/CMSIS_5/Core/html/using_TrustZone_pg.html#RT…> relates as the name indicates to specific threads. It is used to manage the secure stack space for NS->S function calls that are directly initiated by a thread. When the same mechanism is used to protect permanent storage, it implies that this storage is always accessed by the same thread. However user applications may create/destroy threads (run a different combination of threads) which would break this protection already during run time. Moreover when you update your firmware image on the secure side, the thread IDs (module ID) are likely to change, hence a new firmware version might be unable to retrieve information that was stored by a previous version. Long story short: * I cannot see that TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION gives us a solution that works in partice. * I will request to fix the CMSIS documentation for "Thread Context Management"; make it clear that is about thread execution. In a nutshell: we should consider to remove TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION as I cannot see that it works. Reinhard

4 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Questions on TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION

by David Wang

Hi Reinhard, Add more from user's perspective: The non-secure client id can be used to identify different "clients" from non-secure side. The example from tf-m existing secure service is the storage. Different client id can access different storage space. Therefore, the storage is "isolation" among the clients. The users can create the custom secure service and leverage different client ids (let's say non-secure client id here) to identify different non-secure "callers": * The meaning of identifying different non-secure callers depends on the user case of the secure service. For example, different storage spaces, different access permissions, etc. * In RTOS, different non-secure client ids are managed via TZ_APIs (https://www.keil.com/pack/doc/CMSIS/Core/html/group__context__trustzone__fu…) if they're enabled. * The mapping between non-secure applications and the TZ secure contexts (stand for different client ids in tfm) is managed by NS RTOS kernel. When the ns applications get updated, then the mapping should also be maintained by RTOS kernel. Hope this helps. Refs: [1]: TF-M non-secure ID manager http://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/docs/user_guides… [2]: PR to FreeRTOS which uses different non-secure id for storage service: https://github.com/Linaro/amazon-freertos/pull/1 Regards, David Wang From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 7:00 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Questions on TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION Hi Reinhard, My assumption on the user side: - For application developers, they don't need to care about the identification and just access secure service via API. - For non-secure OS (or, a whole system level including SPE and NSPE) developers or integrators, they can implement a mechanism to help SPM identify the different non-secure threads, then SPM can do more granular client management (access control or other policies). If the don't, then SPM take whole NSPE shares the same non-secure client id and no more granular client management. Still need the real USER to provide more information in case my assumption covers partial scenarios only. Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Reinhard Keil via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:57 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: [TF-M] Questions on TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION I see that there has been some progress in the source code to further remove the overhead of TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION when the option is disabled. However, I still don't understand the user view of that feature. How should I use it, also considering the fact that my application may get updated during lifetime. Reinhard

4 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M April 2020