April 2024 - TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

by Bohdan.Hunko＠infineon.com

Hi I am trying to use iatverifier tool from tf-m-tools repo to verify token and it seems like the values for Security Lificycle in the tool are wrong, because: this spec https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tschofenig-rats-psa-token-21.html defines them as psa-lifecycle-unknown-type = 0x0000..0x00ff psa-lifecycle-assembly-and-test-type = 0x1000..0x10ff psa-lifecycle-psa-rot-provisioning-type = 0x2000..0x20ff psa-lifecycle-secured-type = 0x3000..0x30ff psa-lifecycle-non-psa-rot-debug-type = 0x4000..0x40ff psa-lifecycle-recoverable-psa-rot-debug-type = 0x5000..0x50ff psa-lifecycle-decommissioned-type = 0x6000..0x60ff Which is consistent with values of tfm_security_lifecycle_t enum in TFM enum tfm_security_lifecycle_t { TFM_SLC_UNKNOWN = 0x0000u, TFM_SLC_ASSEMBLY_AND_TEST = 0x1000u, TFM_SLC_PSA_ROT_PROVISIONING = 0x2000u, TFM_SLC_SECURED = 0x3000u, TFM_SLC_NON_PSA_ROT_DEBUG = 0x4000u, TFM_SLC_RECOVERABLE_PSA_ROT_DEBUG = 0x5000u, TFM_SLC_DECOMMISSIONED = 0x6000u, TFM_SLC_MAX_VALUE = UINT32_MAX, }; But in the tf-m-tools/iat-verifier/iatverifier/psa_iot_profile1_token_claims.py these values are defined differently # Security Lifecycle claims SL_UNKNOWN = 0x1000 SL_PSA_ROT_PROVISIONING = 0x2000 SL_SECURED = 0x3000 SL_NON_PSA_ROT_DEBUG = 0x4000 SL_RECOVERABLE_PSA_ROT_DEBUG = 0x5000 SL_PSA_LIFECYCLE_DECOMMISSIONED = 0x6000 Thus I am getting SL_UNKNOWN instead of TFM_SLC_ASSEMBLY_AND_TEST Is this a known issue? Can 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>

1 hour, 40 minutes

1
0
0 0

psa_unmap_invec

by Quach, Brian

Hi, I see that tfm_crypto_call_srv() unmaps output vectors if PSA_FRAMEWORK_HAS_MM_IOVEC == 1, but I never see psa_unmap_invec called. This doesn't seem to be required from a functional standpoint but I was wondering if psa_unmap_invec() was purposely skipped to save some unnecessary execution time. Is psa_unmap_invec() only implemented for testing purposes? Regards, Brian Quach SimpleLink MCU Texas Instruments Inc. 12500 TI Blvd, MS F-4000 Dallas, TX 75243 214-479-4076

1 hour, 41 minutes

2
1
0 0

build warning with PSA_FRAMEWORK_HAS_MM_IOVEC

by Quach, Brian

Hi, I noticed this build warning with PSA_FRAMEWORK_HAS_MM_IOVEC enabled. runtime_defs.h need to be updated to add the `const` qualifier I think. tfm/secure_fw/spm/core/psa_interface_thread_fn_call.c:287:33: warning: initialization of 'void * (*)(psa_handle_t, uint32_t)' {aka 'void * (*)(long int, long unsigned int)'} from incompatible pointer type 'const void * (*)(psa_handle_t, uint32_t)' {aka 'const void * (*)(long int, long unsigned int)'} [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] 287 | psa_map_invec_thread_fn_call, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /tfm/secure_fw/spm/core/psa_interface_thread_fn_call.c:287:33: note: (near initialization for 'psa_api_thread_fn_call.psa_map_invec') Regards, Brian Quach SimpleLink MCU Texas Instruments Inc.

15 hours, 1 minute

2
2
0 0

Start of TF-M v2.1.0 release

by Anton Komlev

Hi, We are starting the new TF-M release process on the branch release/2.1.x<https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/+/refs/heads/re…> process and freezing the project features in it. RC1 tag will follow shortly. Let me remind that the code is not frozen, and development can be continued on the main branch as described in TF-M Release Process<https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/releases/release_process.html#r…>. Thanks, Anton

1 day, 1 hour

1
1
0 0

Technical Forum call - July 21

by Anton Komlev

Hi, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, July 21, 7:00-8:00 UTC (East time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Link to the forum: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/92535794925?pwd=TTl0cmo4R2hTNm8wcHo1M3ZKdjlnUT… Recording and slides of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/ Best regards, Anton

6 days, 2 hours

7
55
0 0

psa_interface_thread_fn_call section

by Bohdan.Hunko＠infineon.com

Hi all, Why does TFM assigns function to psa_interface_thread_fn_call section and then never places them anywhere specific? This way functions assigned to this section are placed outside of the code region which may result in unpredictable behavior. 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>

2 weeks, 5 days

1
0
0 0

FW: Weird behavior of Clang linker

by Bohdan.Hunko＠infineon.com

Hi Just forwarding older private discussion to mailing list to make it publicly available. 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> From: Antonio De Angelis <Antonio.DeAngelis(a)arm.com> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 15:57 To: Mazurak Roman (CSS ICW SW FW 3) <Roman.Mazurak(a)infineon.com>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com>; Hunko Bohdan (CSS ICW SW FW 3) <Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com> Subject: Re: Weird behavior of Clang linker Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you validate it is safe<https://intranet-content.infineon.com/explore/aboutinfineon/rules/informati…>. Hi Roman, I tried to look in the ELF spec that I could find by googling, but what I can find online doesn't mention the topic of alignment requirements at all other than a brief mention of how the base address and align requirements must be coherent. How the requirement on alignment propagates from sections to execution regions to load regions is still something that I am trying to understand as I can't find an exhaustive description. The info I shared below stem from a personal conversation that I had with the compiler team internally here in Arm, I have now asked for a reference, will revert back to you in case I get one. [cid:0aef50f0-9105-480f-8090-06cfaa06b8d3] Only explicit mention of alignment that I could find is in the armlink manual in section 3.3.3. [cid:ef5c45ef-7d67-433c-9aba-b8fd7cf0d1c0] The suggestion from the compiler team are as I mentioned: 1. just disable the strict checks on alignment (i.e. the linker will be then allowed to add padding as required to meet the constraint imposed by the base address of the load region and the ALIGN attributes, by suppressing the diagnostic or using --legacyalign (on a side note, I believe this is the default behaviour on GCC linker for example) 2. rewrite the scatter file to have all the input sections without alignment requirements in the output section where the vector reside, and then have another output section just after the first output section (i.e. with base address +0) to put all the other input sections with increased alignment. As a side note, the suggestion is to also align base addresses of sections using AlignExpr(+0, 4096) (for example, to align to 0x1000) rather than forcing ALIGN attributes. Note that this shouldn't be too complex to attain point 2 but it is something that at the moment we can't work on, but happily merge it in if you're willing to provide a patch for it. Your suggestion of having multiple output section is as well doable, but probably enough to have two of them. Will get back to you in case I get some more reference about how the alignment requirements in ELF propagate from input section to output sections just to confirm on the spec itself. Hope this helps, please let me know if any questions! Thanks, Antonio ________________________________ From: Roman.Mazurak(a)infineon.com<mailto:Roman.Mazurak@infineon.com> <Roman.Mazurak(a)infineon.com<mailto:Roman.Mazurak@infineon.com>> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 13:37 To: Antonio De Angelis <Antonio.DeAngelis(a)arm.com<mailto:Antonio.DeAngelis@arm.com>>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>>; Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com> <Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>> Subject: RE: Weird behavior of Clang linker Hi Antonio, We have a use case when output section has following list of input sections: * Vectors with alignment by 0x400. * Partitions sections with alignment by 0x1000. As result output section alignment is 0x1000 and address is incorrect. So, probably it’s necessary to create a separate output section for each input section. Can you share a link to ELF specification with requirements for output section alignment? Best regards, Roman. From: Antonio De Angelis via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 18:56 To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Hunko Bohdan (CSS ICW SW FW 3) <Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>> Subject: [TF-M] Re: Weird behavior of Clang linker Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you validate it is safe<https://intranet-content.infineon.com/explore/aboutinfineon/rules/informati…>. Hi Bohdan, For reference, this is due to armlink being strict on following the ELF specification for which the region alignment is derived as the maximum alignment of the input sections. You can relax this requirement with armlink by either using the --legacyalign option (although it's being deprecated) or suppressing the diagnostic --diag_suppress=6244. In the future, we could try to reorganize the scatter file for the armclang toolchain to avoid using directly ALIGN attributes and align the base address of the execution regions using AlignExpr() instead, but even with this strategy, any alignment requirement which stems from using .aligned directive in assembly or attribute __ ((aligned)) attributes will influence the input sections alignment, hence it will require a deeper restructuring of the scatter file, possibly moving sections with increased alignment in a separate load region just after LR_CODE which must have a base address that forces a natural alignment. Hope this helps. Thanks, Antonio ________________________________ From: Bohdan.Hunko--- via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 13:39 To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Subject: [TF-M] Re: Weird behavior of Clang linker Hi Anton, Here is the version I am using: $ armclang --version Product: Arm Development Studio Gold Edition 2020.1 Component: Arm Compiler for Embedded 6.19 Tool: armclang [5e73cb00] Target: unspecified-arm-none-unspecified 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> From: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 15:34 To: Hunko Bohdan (CSS ICW SW FW 3) <Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: RE: Weird behavior of Clang linker Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you validate it is safe<https://intranet-content.infineon.com/explore/aboutinfineon/rules/informati…>. Hi Bohdan, What is Clang version you are using? Thanks, Anton From: Bohdan.Hunko--- via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 12:58 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] Weird behavior of Clang linker Hi all, Our platform uses 4KBs alignment in linker files (as this is the requirement of our protection HW). For this reasons I have introduced tfm_s_linker_alignments.h. Everything works fine with GCC but we have a problem with Clang. The problem is that Clang requires LR_CODE to have same alignment as other sections inside of it. Following are the steps to reproduce the issue: 1. Set TFM_LINKER_DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT to 0x1000 in tfm_s_linker_alignments.h 2. Build AN521 with following command line cmake -S . -B build_an521 -DTFM_PLATFORM=arm/mps2/an521 -DTFM_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=./toolchain_ARMCLANG.cmake Expected result: Everything works fine Actual result: Error: L6244E: Load region LR_CODE address (0x10080400) not aligned on a 4096 byte boundary. This error is weird because there is no explicit alignment assigned to LR_CODE region. Would appreciate a help on this as it is a blocking issue for us. 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> 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.

2 weeks, 5 days

1
0
0 0

Technical Forum call - July 7

by Anton Komlev

Hi, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, July 7, 15:00-16:00 UTC (West time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Link to the forum: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95570795742?pwd=N21YWHJpUjZyS3Fzd0tkOG9hanpidz… Recording and slides of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/ Best regards, Anton

2 weeks, 5 days

10
56
0 0

TF-M OpenCI issue in lava_test

by Anton Komlev

Hello, TF-M OpenCI fails all LAVA tests and all builds are fail consequently, probably because of a new license mechanism. An investigation and problem fixing are ongoing. I will update you when the problem will be resolved. Best regards, Anton

2 weeks, 5 days

1
1
0 0

Security Vulnerability Notice - Partial tag comparison when using Chacha20-Poly1305 on the PSA driver API interface in CryptoCell enabled platforms

by Antonio De Angelis

Hi Everyone, There is a new security vulnerability discovered on the PSA Driver API for CryptoCell enabled platforms, described as "Partial tag comparison when using Chacha20-Poly1305 on the PSA driver API interface in CryptoCell enabled platforms". Please find the security advisory specific to TF-M and patches that have been developed as per the TrustedFirmware.org security process [1] below : * TF-M Security advisory: TFMV-6: Add cc3xx_partial_tag_compare_on_chacha20_poly1305 advisory (I44bc426f) · Gerrit Code Review (trustedfirmware.org)<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/22995> * Patch to fix the issue has been already merged on master branch as commit https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/commit/?id=2e82… * TF-Mv1.8.1 will be released in the next days containing the same hotfix Please let us know if you have any comments. Best regards, /Antonio [1] https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/security_center/report...<https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/security_center/repor…>

2 weeks, 6 days

2
1
0 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M April 2024