October 2021 - TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

Platform specific test out-of-tree build

by Jianliang Shen

Hi all, Thanks for Chris Brand's enhancement suggestion about platform-specific tests. I'm enabling out-of-tree build mode of platform specific test suites with tf-m-tests. Currently I have proposed the following changes: * [TF-M patch<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11296>] * [tf-m-tests patch<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tests/+/11297>] My proposal supplies a flexible interface for partners to out-of-tree build local tests. With this new feature, * Partners can perform local test quickly during development to improve test efficiency * Partners can maintain local test code outside tf-m-tests repo in case of confidential information or IP issues. I also put an out-of-tree example test source code into tf-m-extras repo and a document in TF-M repo: * [tf-m-extras patch<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-extras/+/11323>] * [TF-M patch doc<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11336>] This example indicates that platform-specific tests can be integrated with tf-m-tests, without following tf-m-tests structure or definitions. The document introduces the usage and coding guide of this new feature. PS: If partners would like to upstream platform specific test code, we will be glad to create a specific folder under tf-m-tests repo as Chris Brand suggested. I'd be grateful if you can take a look at the patch sets above. Any suggestion or comment is welcome. Best Regards Jianliang Shen

3 years, 6 months

1
2
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Adding platform specific functions to Crypto Service.

by Roman.Mazurak＠infineon.com

Hi Fabian, Yes, our team is thinking about adding feature to the Crypto service API, which are not cryptographic in nature. This is one of the possible solution in our design to avoid additional data processing layer between cryptographic clients and crypto accelerator. Our crypto accelerator also provides additional features which will be used by other secure partitions in TF-M but it doesn’t support handling of crypto and non-crypto requests at the same time. It’s not a problem for CC312 which is used for crypto services and OTP in the latest commit. As far as I understand CC312 allows to use crypto operations and OTP related functions at the same time without additional synchronization. So, the reference design is not very helpful in our situation. So, implementation of additional service is not the best solution. It will extend processing time for each cryptographic requests. The other option is to implement synchronization by using mutex. I think mutex is preferable approach, but this feature is also not support by TF-M yet 😊 There is the discussion which I started for mutex : https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-m/2021-October/001914.html Thanks, Roman. From: Fabian Schmidt <fabian.schmidt(a)nxp.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 13:47 To: Shebu.VargheseKuriakose(a)arm.com; David.Hu(a)arm.com; Mazurak Roman (CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW) <Roman.Mazurak(a)infineon.com>; mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd(a)arm.com Subject: RE: [TF-M] Adding platform specific functions to Crypto Service. Hi Roman, My understanding is that you would like to add features to the Crypto service API, but the features which you would like to add are not cryptographic in nature. Have you considered creating your own service for those features, instead of modifying the Crypto service? Or is there anything makes this not a viable option? If you are thinking about adding hardware acceleration for some Crypto features, that’s indeed covered in Shebu’s link. Greetings, Fabian Schmidt From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Shebu Varghese Kuriakose via TF-M Sent: Dienstag, 12. Oktober 2021 11:46 To: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Hu@arm.com>>; Roman.Mazurak(a)infineon.com<mailto:Roman.Mazurak@infineon.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [TF-M] Adding platform specific functions to Crypto Service. Caution: EXT Email Hi Roman, I also might not have understood the question completely. As you mention crypto HAL API, here is the specification which defines a standardized mechanism for PSA Crypto implementations to interface with Secure elements and crypto accelerators - https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/development/docs/proposed/psa-drive…<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…> Also adding mbed-tls mailing list as the thread is crypto related.. Regards, Shebu From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of David Hu via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 4:18 AM To: Roman.Mazurak(a)infineon.com<mailto:Roman.Mazurak@infineon.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Adding platform specific functions to Crypto Service. Hi Roman, Are you asking about adding platform specific HAL API to implement PSA Crypto API function? Please correct me if I misunderstand your question. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Roman Mazurak via TF-M Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:45 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] Adding platform specific functions to Crypto Service. Hi all, We would like to add a number of platform specific functions to Crypto Service API. Is it ok if such functions will not be related to cryptographic service, but such approach allows us to optimize platform design? Is there any initiative to create a Crypto Service HAL API to extend Crypto with custom functions? Best regards, Roman.

3 years, 7 months

2
2
0 0

TF-M Cadence change proposal

by Anton Komlev

Hello, Following the Tech Forum today I am duplicating the proposal of TF-M cadence change from 4 to 6 months here. This will generate 2 releases a year, planed for the end or March and the end of October starting from v1.6.0. The upcoming release v1.5.0 will stay on planned date. Please share your comments and concerns on the topic. Thanks, Anton

3 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

PSA API crypto test breakage

by Chris.Brand＠infineon.com

Commit 42e77b561fcfe19819ff1e63cb7c0b672ee8ba41 ("Crypto: Remove TF-M Crypto service key handle array") seems to break PSA Arch Crypto test 218 (on PSoC64, with gcc, at least). After this commit, the test reports Failed at Checkpoint: 7 Actual: -137 Expected: -136 (so actual is PSA_ERROR_BAD_STATE and expected is PSA_ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE). That same test passes with the previous commit. Chris Brand Cypress Semiconductor (Canada), Inc. Sr Prin Software Engr CSCA CSS ICW SW PSW 1 Office: +1 778 234 0515 Chris.Brand(a)infineon.com<mailto:Chris.Brand@infineon.com>

3 years, 7 months

2
2
0 0

FWU mark TFM image as accepted

by Bohdan.Hunko＠infineon.com

Hi everyone, When studying FWU service I have noticed that there is a function psa_status_t psa_fwu_accept(psa_image_id_t image_id) It is used to mark image as accepted, and it works by writing magic number to image trailer. This function can be used to mark NS or S application as accepted. The first question is: who is responsible for making a call to mark TFM image as accepted ? Is this responsibility of NS application? The second thing I see is write access problem. TFM can receive a call to mark TFM image as accepted, so this means that TFM must have permission to write in its own primary slot. Doesn't this create a possibility for security violation? I can imagine that in ideal world TFM would only have Read and Execute mission for its own primary slot. The only thing that should be able to write to TFM primary slot should be bootloader (it need this functionality to swap images). No one else should be able to write into TFM primary slot. Am I missing something? Best regards, Bohdan Hunko Cypress Semiconductor Ukraine Engineer CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW Mobile: +38099 50 19 714 Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>

3 years, 7 months

4
3
0 0

Technical Forum call - Oct 14

by Anton Komlev

Hi, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, Oct 14, 7:00-8:00 UTC (Asia time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Recording and slides of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/ Best regards, Anton

3 years, 7 months

1
1
0 0

Mutex in SPE

by Roman.Mazurak＠infineon.com

Hi all, We need a mutex to protect access to a shared resource within Platform RoT Services. Is there any plan to add implementation of mutex in TF-M? Maybe it should be a platform specific implementation? Thanks, Roman.

3 years, 7 months

2
1
0 0

TF Open CI FYI

by Don Harbin

Hi all, In a discussion with Anton, it was realized that all contributors may not be aware of some of the information available regarding Open CI. If interested in digging deeper and understanding here are some helpful links. - The Open CI "mini-website" can be found here <https://www.trustedfirmware.org/projects/open-ci/>. - Note in the intro paragraph a hotlink to the *Open CI Lava farm* showing the hardware platforms in the lab, recent test results, etc. Note it requires a login to see all the information - Also of value is a detailed *users guide* that provides an overview of Open CI. You can click on the "docs" icon or just go here <https://tf-ci-users-guide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/>. It's a living document and contributions are encouraged. :) - This page also shares how to get further involved and the location of the code. Best regards, Don

3 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Adding platform specific functions to Crypto Service.

by Roman.Mazurak＠infineon.com

Hi all, We would like to add a number of platform specific functions to Crypto Service API. Is it ok if such functions will not be related to cryptographic service, but such approach allows us to optimize platform design? Is there any initiative to create a Crypto Service HAL API to extend Crypto with custom functions? Best regards, Roman.

3 years, 7 months

3
2
0 0

Enable a peripheral interrupt to an App RoT

by Cristiano Rodrigues

Hi everyone, I am developing an App RoT for STM32L552 and testing the recent integrated FLIH interrupt feature, but I am missing something in the step of "Initializing the Interrupts" and "Integrating the Interrupt Handling Function". As is described in Secure Interrupt Integration Guide <https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/docs/integration_guide/tfm_secu…>, to enable an interrupt it is needed: 1. Binding the interrupt to a Secure Partition. 2. Granting the Secure Partition access permissions to the device of the interrupt. 3. Initializing the interrupt. 4. Integrating the interrupt handling function Step *1 *and *2, * think that is "checked": - by adding this code to the partition manifest file. "mmio_regions": [ { "name": "TFM_PERIPHERAL_TIMER7", "permission": "READ-WRITE" } ], "irqs": [ { "source": "TFM_TIMER7_IRQ", "name": "TFM_TIMER7_IRQ", "handling": "FLIH", } - By defining the macro with platform peripheral structure in *patform/ext/target/stm/common/stm32l5xx/boards/tfm_peripherals_def.h* extern struct platform_data_t timer7 #define TFM_PERIPHERAL_TIMER7 &timer7 - *By assign the peripheral address in platform\ext\target\stm\common\stm32l5xx\secure\target_cfg.c* struct platform_data_t timer7 = { __TIMER7_BASE, __TIMER7_BASE + 0x3FF, -1, -1 }; - By adding the peripheral name to “partition_named_mmio_list[]” in the file *patform/ext/target/stm/common/stm32l5xx/boards/mmio_defs.h* const uintptr_t partition_named_mmio_list[] = { (uintptr_t)TFM_PERIPHERAL_TIMER0, (uintptr_t)TFM_PERIPHERAL_STD_UART, (uintptr_t) TFM_PERIPHERAL_TIMER7, }; - And add to my partition code, the irq function, and the function to configure the timer psa_flih_result_t tfm_timer7_irq_flih(void) { .... } static void flih_test_case_1(psa_msg_t *msg) { psa_irq_enable(TFM_TIMER7_IRQ_SIGNAL); timer_start(); ....... timer_stop(); psa_irq_disable(TFM_TIMER7_IRQ_SIGNAL); psa_reply(msg->handle, PSA_SUCCESS); } My problem, I think, is with the other two steps, *3 *and *4. *The TF-M documentation is not clear in these two steps. In step *3, *as is said in the documentation it is needed: i) to configure the interrupt priority; ii) to ensure that the interrupt targets the Secure State. iii) and save the interrupt information. So I suppose it goes something like this: struct irq_t { void *p_pt; struct irq_load_info_t *p_ildi; } save_tfm_timer7_irq_info; enum tfm_hal_status_t tfm_timer7_irq_init(void *p_pt, struct irq_load_info_t *p_ildi) { //targetting the interrupt to S state NVIC_ClearTargetState(TIM7_IRQn); NVIC_SetPriority(TIM7_IRQn, 1); NVIC_EnableIRQ(TIM7_IRQn); //Saving the Interrupt Information save_tfm_timer7_irq_info.p_pt = p_pt; save_tfm_timer7_irq_info.p_ildi = p_ildi; return TFM_HAL_SUCCESS; } *But in which file should I put this function? And where should I call this function??* And in step *4, *I also do not understand how can I meet this requirement -> "Platforms should call this entry function in the interrupt handlers defined in Vector Table with the saved information for each interrupt." Being the function in question -> *void spm_handle_interrupt(void *p_pt, struct irq_load_info_t *p_ildi).* *Which file can I do this in? And how should I do this step?* Cheers, Cristiano Rodrigues

3 years, 7 months

2
1
0 0

Boot shared data TLV length

by Bohdan.Hunko＠infineon.com

Hi everyone, IAS docs have this<https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/docs/integration_guide/services…> note that says: There is a size field tlv_len which has different definitions in the upstream MCUboot repository and in its TF-M forked version: * Upstream MCUboot: Covers only the length of data but not the header size. * TF-M MCUboot: Covers the size of the entry header and the data together. This difference is handled by TF-M code based on which bootloader is used along with TF-M runtime. I was wondering where in code is this difference handled? When calculating next TLV entry address attest_core.c line 213<https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/secure_fw/…> takes into account SHARED_DATA_ENTRY_HEADER_SIZE: tlv_curr = (*tlv_ptr) + SHARED_DATA_ENTRY_HEADER_SIZE + tlv_entry.tlv_len; So tlv_entry.tlv_len then must cover only length of entry (without header). This way corresponds to: "Upstream MCUboot: Covers only the length of data but not the header size" I was not able to find anything related to "TF-M MCUboot: Covers the size of the entry header and the data together". Is this difference handled in TF-M fork of MCUboot or is it just outdated IAS doc? Best regards, Bohdan Hunko Cypress Semiconductor Ukraine Engineer CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW Mobile: +38099 50 19 714 Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>

3 years, 7 months

2
1
0 0

Problem with PSoC armclang build

by Chris.Brand＠infineon.com

Hi, We've been investigating a problem with the armclang builds for PSoC. The symptoms are that the board just repeatedly reboots. We've narrowed it down to commit 300c68da11 "SPM: Use Main Stack for initialization". This commit is fine with the gcc toolchain but doesn't seem right for armclang (we haven't yet looked at IAR). Still digging into the issue, but I figured it might be helpful to give it more publicity. Chris Brand Cypress Semiconductor (Canada), Inc. Sr Prin Software Engr CSCA CSS ICW SW PSW 1 Office: +1 778 234 0515 Chris.Brand(a)infineon.com<mailto:Chris.Brand@infineon.com>

3 years, 7 months

2
3
0 0

nxp/lpcxpresso55s69 builds broken

by Thomas Törnblom

While verifying that my Musca B1/S1 fixes for IAR did not break other targets I ran into building problems for the nxp/lpcxpresso55s69 for both gnuarm and iararm. I've tested with the following cmake line: cmake -GNinja -S .. -B . -DTFM_PLATFORM=nxp/lpcxpresso55s69 "-DTFM_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=..\toolchain_GNUARM.cmake" -DTEST_NS=ON -DTEST_S=ON -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo -DTFM_PSA_API=ON -DBL2=OFF Fails with: d:/apps/gnuarm/10-2020-q4-major/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/10.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld.exe: C:\Users\thomasto\Projects\tf-m12\trusted-firmware-m\gnuarm/../secure_fw/spm/ffm/psa_api.c:890: undefined reference to `tfm_hal_irq_disable' I notice that tfm_hal_irq_disable() is guarded by: #if TFM_LVL == 3 in .../nxp/common/tfm_hal_isolation.c, while the other targets does not have this guard. What isthe reason for that? Trying to set that with cmake causes other failures. commit 8444011d works commit 4051016f fails I tried bisecting between these two commits, but the builds run into other build failures so I gave up on that. Is his a known issue? I have successfully built and run regression tests on musca b1, musca s1, psoc64 and I have built, but not run an519, an521, an524 Cheers, Thomas -- *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>

3 years, 7 months

2
2
0 0

[PLATFORM ATTENTION REQUIRED] Partition interrupt binding patches have been merged

by Ken Liu

Dear platform owners, Theses interrupt binding patch(es) are merged: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11474 As the most part of the change happen in platform, please report platform integration if you met. Sorry I had thought the notification mail has been sent during the PR stage but it did not, hence it is not broadcasted in time. Current there are build errors reported on nxp/nordic platforms, and this patch should fix the problem: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11741 Also, Ci reported arch-test build fail, hence the fix for arch-test is here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11742 Feel free to put comments and I will update them later, or just update the patch if it is quick for you, add your name into the author in commit message. You also can create standalone patches if you change is not covered by mentioned patches. Thanks. /Ken

3 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M October 2021