Hi,
Sorry 2nd link was broken. Here is the working version:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tschofenig-rats-psa-token-09.html#tab…
Tamas Ban
From: Andersson, Joakim <Joakim.Andersson(a)nordicsemi.no>
Sent: 2022. május 9., hétfő 12:14
To: Tamas Ban <Tamas.Ban(a)arm.com>
Subject: RE: Attestation token new spec
Is te second link broken? I get a 404 error code.
-Joakim
From: Tamas Ban via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Sent: mandag 9. mai 2022 11:31
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] Attestation token new spec
Hi,
the initial attestation token implementation is aligned with this specification:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tschofenig-rats-psa-token-05<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatrack…>
This spec is still evolving and there is a newer version which changes the key values of the claims in the token:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tschofenig-rats-psa-token-09.html#tab…<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.…>
This can cause combability issues between token issuer (device) and token verifier (some remote verification service).
This is an ABI change between token issuer and consumer.
The breaking effect would be manifest in unaccepted IAT tokens by the verifier.
On-device side I see these options to make the transition:
- A build-time option could be introduced which determines which range of key numbers to use. The default value would be the new range. To not let new users pick up the old values accidentally. Existing users can notice the incompatibility issue during the integration test and adjust their build command accordingly. However, the old range would be announced as deprecated in the next TF-M release, then will be removed in the next release after.
- Immediate switch over to the new range, without supporting the old range anymore. On the verification service side, an SW update can handle the transition and might be accepting both ranges for a while. I assume the verification service can be updated more easily than remote devices therefore better to handle the compatibility issue there.
- Keeping the support for both ranges for the long term and letting users choose by build time.
Please share your thoughts on:
- Are you aware that the attestation service is used in deployed devices where this transition can cause incompatibility?
- From the above list which option would you vote to support the transition?
Best regards,
Tamas Ban
Is 11.2-2022.02 the recommended compiler version?
I saw TF-M v1.8 states:
" GNU Arm compiler version *10-2020-q4-major* has an issue in CMSE
support. The bug is reported in `here <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99157>`__.
Select other GNU Arm compiler versions instead.
GNU Arm compiler version greater and equal than *11.3.Rel1* has a linker issue in syscall.
Select other GNU Arm compiler versions instead.
"
Regards,
Brian Quach
SimpleLink MCU
Texas Instruments Inc.
Hi all,
Seems like dependency on generated files is broken.
Steps to reproduce:
1. Build any platform at any mode
2. Change any .template file
3.
Expected result:
1. New file is generated from the updated .template file
Actual result:
1. Generated files step is skipped.
My best guess will be that 1ce59292a47b1316e5d8b4d28bcaf9d8e2bdc0a5 broke it.
Could this be fixed?
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>
Hi,
On the last tech forum (June 22) we started discussion on multicore hybrid platforms.
By this mail I’d like to follow up and continue offline analyses on new use-cases and requirements for TF-M design update.
The recorded session is available here: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/rec/share/yseF-mYwUTtHHPkQJQO6IEv72xCd0Lz1pQQecc…, Passcode: 5s=Npv=w
and slides: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/docs/tech_forum_20230622_Hybrid_platforms.p…
The current plan is to take time, think on the use-cases and map them on requirements. With more thought and materials, we will have another session about September time to define our needs in the support of new type of platform.
Please share your thoughts in reply.
Thanks,
Anton
Hi Andrey,
Patch 21339<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/21339> introduced changes of configuration order:
1. Platform configuration via TARGET_CONFIG_HEADER_FILE.
2. Project configuration via PROJECT_CONFIG_HEADER_FILE
3. config_base.h
It means that target can't change configuration that is expected to be changed by project. Example:
1. Platform must redefine ITS_STACK_SIZE to satisfy driver requirements. The good way for this is to set ITS_STACK_SIZE in config_tfm_target.h.
2. Project developer need to perform some additional debugging or profiling of the product, so the TF-M must be built with extra code that require additional stack size. It means that project developer need to #undef ITS_STACK_SIZE and then redefine it using #define ITS_STACK_SIZE. But this #undef/#define approach is not safe, because it's possible to calculate some other settings using configuration variable in config_tfm_target.h or perform additional configuration validation by config_tfm_target.h.
It looks like the new changes created another bunch of problems for TF-M configuration.
Regards,
Roman.
FYI to all TF dev teams leveraging Open CI.
Best regards,
Don
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Glen Valante via Tf-openci-triage <
tf-openci-triage(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 at 08:41
Subject: [Tf-openci-triage] FYI; Cambridge Lab Down
To: tf-openci-triage(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <
tf-openci-triage(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Hello All;
FYI; the Cambridge lab took a serious power hit and is down. They are
scrambling to get things back up, but it may take all weekend.
Expect LAVA failures and other strange results.
Thanks;
-g
--
[image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org>
Glen Valante | *Director Program & Project Management*
T: +1.508.517.3461 <1617-320-5000>
glen.valante(a)linaro.org | Skype: gvalante <callto:gvalante>
--
Tf-openci-triage mailing list -- tf-openci-triage(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
tf-openci-triage-leave(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Hi all,
I am currently trying out TF-M together with Zephyr and therefore ported it to the Nucleo-U575ZI-Q evaluation board. I started to struggle when trying to implement an example for a custom Secure Partition (SP) which should access peripherals.
I recognized, that the `target_cfg.*` throughout different vendors follow different design principles. E.g. for Nordic controllers an example is given with their nordic-sdk on how to implement peripheral access for a SP (https://developer.nordicsemi.com/nRF_Connect_SDK/doc/2.0.0/nrf/samples/tfm/…). For ST devices I tried to transfer this, however, where unsuccessful so far as for the ST microcontrollers the peripheral definitions are missing, and things are just different.
Is there any example for ST controllers on how to make specific peripherals only accessible through SPE? Is this currently supported for ST devices?
And another question, as the Embedded Open Source Summit arises, is TF-M represented somewhere on conferences?
Kind Regards
Christian Spinnler
Siemens AG
Technology
Connectivity & Edge
T CED SSI-DE
Schuckertstrasse 2
91058 Erlangen, Deutschland
mailto:christian.spinnler@siemens.com
www.siemens.com<https://siemens.com>
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Jim Hagemann Snabe; Vorstand: Roland Busch, Vorsitzender; Cedrik Neike, Matthias Rebellius, Ralf P. Thomas, Judith Wiese; Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin und München, Deutschland; Registergericht: Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, München, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 23691322