Hi Kumar,
Thanks a lot for reporting this issue.
We had also reported it to the GNU toolchain team and were waiting them to make it public.
Hi all,
Now the details of this issue can be found in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99157.
AFIAK, there is no workaround for this issue yet, without modifying the GNU toolchain source code.
So I'd like to suggest to *not* use GNU Arm embedded toolchain version 10-2020-q4-major now. The earlier versions are not affected.
Best regards,
Hu Ziji
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Kumar Gala via TF-M
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 2:41 AM
To: Adrian Shaw via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [TF-M] Bug in GNU Arm Embedded toolchain (version 10-2020-q4-major) for TFM
Be aware that the binary release of the GNU Arm embedded toolchain version 10-2020-q4-major has a bug in it that impacts TFM support.
I’ve reported this to the Arm team that works on the toolchain and provided a fix as well. The libgcc/cmse.o code isn’t being properly compiled and thus doesn’t work correctly.
I’ve made the fix in the Zephyr SDK toolchain that provides an Arm embedded build:
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/sdk-ng
Bug fix here:
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/sdk-ng/blob/master/patches/gcc/10.2.0…
- k
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
Hi all,
As I mentioned on yesterday's forum, I made a patch<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tools/+/8484> to fix the gitattributes issues in the tools repo.
And the last call of review for the main repo normalization:
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/8283
Plan to have them both merged on next Tuesday.
Best Regards,
Kevin
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:03 AM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M git repo normalization
Hi,
I'd like to give a brief introduction on the git normalization before merging this patch.
@Anton Komlev<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>, can I reserve 15-20 minutes of the next tech forum?
Best Regards,
Kevin
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:56 AM
To: 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] TF-M git repo normalization
Hi all,
Would like to merge the below patch *tomorrow* if there were no objections.
Best Regards,
Kevin
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 10:37 AM
To: 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] TF-M git repo normalization
This patch was generated by git command automatically:
$ git add --renormalize .
It does change any contents of the files, except the line-endings in the repository.
Your existing local working tree should not be affected when you pick up it or later when it's merged.
The only file maintained manually is the .gitattributes
Best Regards,
Kevin
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 9:53 AM
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 git repo normalization
Hi all,
Following the git normalization topic of the tech forum yesterday, I checked TF-M.
It has not been enabled the git normalization feature.
I've made a patch<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/8283> to make this happen.
Please check out or rebase your work upon this patch to see any issues.
Your existing working tree should not be affected regarding the line-endings.
What is the normalization?
To be simple, different developers on different Host OS can have different line-endings in their local working tree and do not need to worry about interference with each other.
Reference: https://git-scm.com/docs/gitattributes
Best Regards,
Kevin
Be aware that the binary release of the GNU Arm embedded toolchain version 10-2020-q4-major has a bug in it that impacts TFM support.
I’ve reported this to the Arm team that works on the toolchain and provided a fix as well. The libgcc/cmse.o code isn’t being properly compiled and thus doesn’t work correctly.
I’ve made the fix in the Zephyr SDK toolchain that provides an Arm embedded build:
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/sdk-ng
Bug fix here:
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/sdk-ng/blob/master/patches/gcc/10.2.0…
- k
Agenda for the forum:
1. Git repository normalization.
2. Linaro SQUAD interface to visualise TF-M metrics
3. Any Other Business
Regards,
Anton
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M
Sent: 10 February 2021 17:14
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - February 18
Hello,
The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, Feb 18 at 15:00-16:00 UTC (US time zone).
Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics.
Kevin Peng already proposed the one:
1. Git repository normalization.
Recording and slides of previous meetings are here:
https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/
Best regards,
Anton
Hi all,
The PSA Firmware Update API specification is now published on Arm Developer.
This document introduces a standard firmware interface for installing firmware updates.
The document can be downloaded from https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ihi0093/0000/
This is an initial BETA release in order to enable wider review and feedback. We shall release new Beta versions to address feedback and comments.
Sherry Zhang in TF-M has begun an implementation of this interface, which is a work in progress.
If you have any feedback about the API specification, please provide it to arm.psa-feedback(a)arm.com, or discuss the proposal here in the TF-M mailing list.
Regards,
Adrian
Hello,
The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, Feb 18 at 15:00-16:00 UTC (US time zone).
Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics.
Kevin Peng already proposed the one:
1. Git repository normalization.
Recording and slides of previous meetings are here:
https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/
Best regards,
Anton
Hi Antonio,
May I suggest to raise the question to PSA Arch test repo https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/issues?
Best regards,
Hu Ziji
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Antonio Ken IANNILLO via TF-M
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 8:43 PM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [TF-M] PSA-ARCH-TEST with zephyr
I just add the verbosity (I initially tough was the cmake verbosity..) to the test libraries.
This is the new output is somebody can help: https://pastebin.com/JNQ6TD0K
In the specific the failure is at :
‘’’
TEST: 403 | DESCRIPTION: Insufficient space check
Input id is 01030000
Input id is 01030000
Input id is 02020000
Input id is 02020000
[Info] Executing tests from non-secure
[Info] Executing PS tests
[Check 1] Overload storage space
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 5
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 6
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 7
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 8
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 9
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 10
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 11
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 12
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 13
UID 13 set failed due to insufficient space
Remove all registered UIDs
Removing UID 5
Removing UID 6
Removing UID 7
Removing UID 8
Removing UID 9
Removing UID 10
Removing UID 11
Removing UID 12
[Check 2] Overload storage again to verify all previous UID removed
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 5
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 6
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 7
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 8
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 9
[INF] Starting bootloader
[INF] Swap type: none
[INF] Swap type: none
[INF] Bootloader chainload address offset: 0x80000
[INF] Jumping to the first image slot
[Sec Thread] Secure image initializing!
Booting TFM v1.2.0
[Crypto] MBEDTLS_TEST_NULL_ENTROPY is not suitable for production!
*** Booting Zephyr OS build v2.5.0-rc1-209-g30634334a811 ***
‘’’
--
Antonio Ken Iannillo
I just add the verbosity (I initially tough was the cmake verbosity..) to the test libraries.
This is the new output is somebody can help: https://pastebin.com/JNQ6TD0K
In the specific the failure is at :
‘’’
TEST: 403 | DESCRIPTION: Insufficient space check
Input id is 01030000
Input id is 01030000
Input id is 02020000
Input id is 02020000
[Info] Executing tests from non-secure
[Info] Executing PS tests
[Check 1] Overload storage space
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 5
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 6
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 7
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 8
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 9
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 10
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 11
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 12
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 13
UID 13 set failed due to insufficient space
Remove all registered UIDs
Removing UID 5
Removing UID 6
Removing UID 7
Removing UID 8
Removing UID 9
Removing UID 10
Removing UID 11
Removing UID 12
[Check 2] Overload storage again to verify all previous UID removed
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 5
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 6
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 7
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 8
Setting 0x00000200 bytes for UID 9
[INF] Starting bootloader
[INF] Swap type: none
[INF] Swap type: none
[INF] Bootloader chainload address offset: 0x80000
[INF] Jumping to the first image slot
[Sec Thread] Secure image initializing!
Booting TFM v1.2.0
[Crypto] MBEDTLS_TEST_NULL_ENTROPY is not suitable for production!
*** Booting Zephyr OS build v2.5.0-rc1-209-g30634334a811 ***
‘’’
--
Antonio Ken Iannillo
Thanks for your inputs.
I am seeking if boot data is used for a specific service only - if that is true, this boot data actually can be bound to the specific services, and other could request boot data related services by API.
/Ken
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Michel JAOUEN via TF-M
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:53 PM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] Boot data usage
Hello,
On STM platform, The boot data is also used to pass specific information to user different from attestation.
For this support a specific Major is used. The actual implementation available in ST cube needs to be reworked so that each platform can customize it (Major value, and table checking access control on tfm core)
Best regards
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Tamas Ban via TF-M
Sent: mardi 9 février 2021 11:52
To: 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] Boot data usage
Hi Ken,
AFAIK current implementation of FWU partition also relies on shared data received from bootloader.
Tamas
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M
Sent: 2021. február 9., kedd 10:47
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] Boot data usage
Hi,
Wondered if someone is expanding the boot data usage, as the default user is attestation only.
Please provide your case if you are expanding boot data usage.
Thanks!
/Ken
Dear all,
I’m running the PSA-ARCH-TEST (functional api tests) with Zephyr OS (for now emulated with QEMU 5).
I followed the instructions to build the test libraries and linked successfully with an easy zephyr application (it just call the val_entry() function).
When everything seems working smoothly with Storage tests, I realized that at a certain point the system fails and restarts. Repeatedly.
Does any of you have already integrated these tests with zephyr? Did I forget something in the process?
I tried also to understand the test that failed everything. It actually overload storage space (without any problem) and do it again (fails after 6 UIDS).
Further, any of you know how to have a debug version of the psa-arch-test libraries? Or how to force them to print debug/test message as well…
Terminal output is here: https://pastebin.com/ixmeB0kN
Thank you very much for your help,
--
Antonio Ken Iannillo
Research Scientist – SEDAN group
SnT – Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust
UNIVERSITÉ DU LUXEMBOURG
CAMPUS KIRCHBERG
29, avenue John F. Kennedy
L-1855 Luxembourg Kirchberg
T +352 46 66 44 9660
www.uni.lu/snthttps://akiannillo.github.io/
