- TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

by Andrei Narkevitch

Hi all, Just to let you know, some time ago Cypress has officially released the PSoC64 platform. With this, we are planning to stop supporting old PSoC64 development kits and move our focus on the new release boards. This is mainly because the old boards were programmed with an old firmware which is not compatible with the changes we do to the TFM code and it would be an unnecessary overhead to support both versions. Please let us know if it causes any issues. The new PSoC64 kit: https://www.cypress.com/documentation/development-kitsboards/psoc-64-standa… Thanks, Andrei Narkevitch Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company 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.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Invitation: TF-M Tech Forum @ Thu 1 Oct 2020 07:00 - 08:00 (BST) (tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org)

by Bill Fletcher

You have been invited to the following event. Title: TF-M Tech Forum About TF-M Tech forum:This is an open forum for anyone to participate and it is not restricted to Trusted Firmware project members. It will operate under the guidance of the TF TSC.Feel free to forward it to colleagues.Details of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/Tr… Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom Meetinghttps://zoom.us/j/9159704974Meeting ID: 915 970 4974One tap mobile+16465588656,,9159704974# US (New York)+16699009128,,9159704974# US (San Jose)Dial by your location        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)        877 853 5247 US Toll-free        888 788 0099 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 915 970 4974Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad27hc6t7h   When: Thu 1 Oct 2020 07:00 – 08:00 United Kingdom Time Calendar: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Who: * Bill Fletcher- creator * Don Harbin * tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Event details: https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=N250M2VrZnZtMnY0MjU3d… Invitation from Google Calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/ You are receiving this courtesy email at the account tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively, you can sign up for a Google Account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organiser and be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of their own invitation status or to modify your RSVP. Learn more at https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Invitation: TF-M Tech Forum @ Thu 15 Oct 2020 16:00 - 17:00 (BST) (tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org)

by Bill Fletcher

You have been invited to the following event. Title: TF-M Tech Forum About TF-M Tech forum:This is an open forum for anyone to participate and it is not restricted to Trusted Firmware project members. It will operate under the guidance of the TF TSC.Feel free to forward it to colleagues.Details of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/Tr… Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom Meetinghttps://zoom.us/j/9159704974Meeting ID: 915 970 4974One tap mobile+16465588656,,9159704974# US (New York)+16699009128,,9159704974# US (San Jose)Dial by your location        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)        877 853 5247 US Toll-free        888 788 0099 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 915 970 4974Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad27hc6t7h   When: Thu 15 Oct 2020 16:00 – 17:00 United Kingdom Time Calendar: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Who: * Bill Fletcher- creator * Don Harbin * tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Event details: https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=MjRoajVlNjRuczZqYWIwN… Invitation from Google Calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/ You are receiving this courtesy email at the account tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively, you can sign up for a Google Account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organiser and be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of their own invitation status or to modify your RSVP. Learn more at https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

New buildsystem merged

by Raef Coles

Hi all The new buildsystem has now been merged to both the trusted-firmware-m and tf-m-tests repositories. There are a few known issues: * STM platforms run into issues with flash space when building under debug configuration. * nxp/lpcxpresso66s69 fails regression tests - this is being looked into as a priority. For building with the new buildsystem, there have been some changes to the command-line. An example invocation is shown below. ``` cd <TFM root dir> mkdir build && cd build cmake .. -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an521 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake make ``` CMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE and TFM_PLATFORM are the only required arguments. CMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE is conceptually a replacement for COMPILER. It is a path to one of the three toolchain files in the TFM root dir. * <TFM root dir>/toolchain_GNUARM.cmake * <TFM root dir>/toolchain_ARMCLANG.cmake * <TFM root dir>/toolchain_IARARM.cmake TFM_PLATFORM is conceptually a replacement for TARGET_PLATFORM. Unlike TARGET_PLATFORM it takes as an argument the path between `platform/ext/target` and the target dir. For example: * -DTFM_PLATFORM=musca_s1 * -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 * -DTFM_PLATFORM=nxp/lpcxpresso55s69 PROJ_CONFIG has now been removed. Instead configuration has been simplified using composable variables. Enable regression tests: -DTEST_NS=ON -DTEST_S=ON Enable IPC mode: -DTFM_PSA_API=ON Set isolation level: -DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=2 So instead of ConfigRegressionIPC: -DTEST_NS=ON -DTEST_S=ON -DTFM_PSA_API=ON For integration with other projects, there is a new option: -DNS=[ON/OFF] If NS is set to OFF, TFM will build only the secure image (as bin tfm_s.axf) and the PSA api as a static library. This should make integration with other projects much simpler. Other miscellaneous improvements: * Full ninja support * Automatic dependency management * generation of axf, elf, hex and bin files for all outputs * Full support for partial rebuilding and parallel building * Modular support for crypto accelerators * better integration of multi-core support For full details of buildsystem variable changes, refer to `docs/getting_started/tfm_build_instructions.rst` and `config/config_default.cmake` Raef

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder

by Ken Liu

Thanks all for the inputs. May I collect answers for these questions: * Does the build system/IDE support sub-project for components and finally assemble them into one final image? The intention is to check the possibility to integrate TFM with sub-projects instead of a whole item. * Is there scenarios that dynamic sections being added into sct/ld, how do you deal with this? A reference link is also helpful. The intention: TF-M is actually a set of components, and the secure firmware part (secure boot is another image binary so not listed here) contains: 1. Libraries. 2. Partitions. 3. SPM. 4. Image assembling with all above components. The straight way is to generate ABC as *.a and assemble them together into a final image. Then go through each component, A and C can be configured in C domain, as what they needs maybe just some feature flags. B is a bit special but we still could provide specification defined .json and its compatible .yaml manifest and pre-generated C-based manifest with preprocessors. D is the hard part, as it needs special arrangement inside ld/sct, which make this discussion happen. Even the ‘include’ and ‘preprocessor’ are supported inside sct/ld, we still can not avoid the partitions including part, we can not do a foreach on the partition list which involve the preprocessor complexity into sct/ld. Looks like the templating can’t be avoided here. For platform specific requirements like: * Some platform won’t separate RODATA and CODE; * Some platform got non-continuous memory regions for special data; Put a platform dedicated sct/ld into the platform folder would help; but to mitigate the effort of platform, a common sct/ld needs to be abstracted. Thanks again for your great feedback. /Ken [History collapsed due to message size limitation]

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder

by Reed Hinkel

Hello Gyrogy: Your comment raises the question. Why is TF-M so complex and does it need to be the only answer? Either it needs to be simplified or respect must be paid to support in commercial tools as a first class citizen. Commercial tools are the path for large scale product developers. If they can’t engage TF-M with commercial tools or SiP tools then developers will face challenges to develop with it. It there are challenges they may even avoid using it in favor of simplified solutions much as they do today. Multiple target use cases will be using various components of TF-M (MbedTLS with and without hardware interfaces, Attestation, Audit Logs, etc.): 1. Arm v8M – Cortex-M33, M35, M55 2. Dual Core Systems – Multiple possible configs 3. Cortex v6M of v7M – M0, M0+, M3 & M4 4. TF-A 5. Other Cortex-R & Cortex-A implementations This reality argues for a more modular build packaging system that allows for it. All the best! Reed From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Reply-To: Gyorgy Szing <Gyorgy.Szing(a)arm.com> Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 5:04 AM To: "tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Andrej, TF-M relies heavily on compile time configuration, and C is quiet limited on that. This means we cannot rely on the only standardized part of the “ecosystem” solely, and we have to use non-standard tools. I would love to have a portable automation solution supported by most IDEs. Yes, a lot of projects can go well with a single configuration header but unfortunately TF-M is more complex than that: * How could we get information from manifest files to the build? * How could we generate signed binary packages for the boot-loader? * How could we control memory map in sync with the hw configuration in source files? (The current pre-processing linker files approach is already non-standard.) None of these can be solved with IDEs in a portable way. I understand that adding IDE support for TF-M is challenging but the root cause is not how we implemented the build system, but how IDEs can handle the complexity needed by TF-M. /George From: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com> Sent: 23 September 2020 09:33 To: Gyorgy Szing <Gyorgy.Szing(a)arm.com>; Ken Liu <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: RE: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Ken, So we are using one default/typical configuration. If any change in it, a user have to do changes manually which are not clear without deeper knowledge of the TFM project. But this is the issue of the TF-M chosen approach - fully rely on cmake preprocessing. The proposal is to use approach which is good for all worlds (cmake and IDEs) and which is used by all embedded MCU open-source projects like MbedTLS, FreeRTOS, lwIP, FNET and etc. Which is to have only one set of platform-independent files and the framework configuration from a user/project configuration file. It will work for both worlds, will solve all configuration issues we have, and will make TF-M easy to use and more popular. I am talking about this from very beginning. As no steps in right direction, we have a forked TF-M for our SDK. Thanks George for support ;) Andrej Butok 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: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:45 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Andrej, Sounds like your IDE is using the default .sct/.ld file, may I ask some a question that: * Is there a scenario that someone wants to add more partitions other than the default ones into your system, and how could they do that? I believe the existing .sct/.ld do not support extra partitions out of the default ones unless some manually modification is done. We need to support more components (partition is the direct example), so in this case, the sct/ld can’t be avoided to be modified. Or do you think if we put a specific .sct/.ld under nxp folder would work if there is no other partitions are needed? Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:46 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi, Good point, this is an important factor. I think templating can be IDE compliant as long as the IDE does support pre-build step(s). The current build flow already contains steps requiring this and thus I don’t think situation would be much worse with any mentioned solution than it is today. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: 23 September 2020 08:33 To: Ken Liu <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com<mailto:Ken.Liu@arm.com>> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Please, do not add changes to sources & linker-files which may harm Non-Cmake systems (IDEs). Thanks, Andrej Butok 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: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:05 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder As cmake is still the build system, let me check the cmake related feature – but need to wait the build system change get merged then we can take a look where to start. BR. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:43 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: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Ken, I think templating is a good approach here, the current C preprocessor based solution is a very limited implementation of this. I see two main contenders for templating: 1. cmake has built in support for templating with the configure_file() [1] command. This would move ownership of this information info the build scripts, which are the focus point for such info already. A cmake based solution would feel more native to the existing system. On the other hand other solutions might have more features, which could lead to easier to read template files. Also cmake as a template engine is not that widely adopted. 2. jinja2 [2]. A widely adopted and more feature rich templating engine. TF-M already uses it for manifest file handling. I suggest using yahsa [3] instead of a custom pyhton script as the cli frontend though. This could speed up development as long as no complex processing is needed and the templates can be filled based on “simple” values. Which of the above is the best for the task depends on template file readability and on complexity of the task. It could be nice if a clean split could be made, and we could stop using the C preprocessor based processing completely. “Not sure if all these format support #include” The build system works around that by implementing a compiler specific cmake function to add the pre-processing step for compilers not supporting pre-processing out of the box. /George [1] https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.18/command/configure_file.html<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcmake.org…> [2] https://jinja.palletsprojects.com/en/2.11.x/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjinja.pal…> [3] https://github.com/kblomqvist/yasha<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…> 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: 22 September 2020 10:15 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi, During the level3 prototyping, we found using a unified sct/ld/file would be hard because we are trying to cover platform-specific setting in ONE place. The biggest concern of preventing spreading the LD is: if there are COMMON changes then every platform source needs to be updated. I believe the COMMON change is the arrangement of ARoT and PRoT, those platform-specific things such as CODE_SRAM and MPU alignment issue should not be covered inside the common sct/ld/icf. Not sure if all these format support #include but as we are using a template so it should be possible to put COMMON settings inside a COMMON template and let platform to contain these common part and then add the specific settings. I have a rough idea (see above) and need more investigation, request for ideas/concerns about this part. Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Shawn Shan via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:27 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi all, There are many differences in linker scripts between each platform. Using a common_s.sct/ld makes it too complicated. And at the same time, in order to achieve isolation level 3, the position of the sessions in scatter and linker script file needs to be adjusted. The common linker scripts would be more complicated with isolation L3. So I would like to propose to have dedicated linker scripts for platforms with enough differential arrangements. What’s your opinion on this? Best regards, Shawn

5 years, 2 months

2
2
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder

by Soby Mathew

Thanks Gyorgy for your inputs. I haven't checked out the details of all the pre-build processing, but it does seem complex to solve this in a portable way, but one suggestion from me is that perhaps the output from the pre-build processing should be a standard C header and from then on the standardized C pre-processing can be used for the rest of the configuration. For example, instead of the pre-build step generating producing the final linker script , it could instead generate a C header file which then can be consumed by the linker script. Here only the C header is generated and the linker script is untouched. This means that, if the IDEs can find a path to generate this C header file somehow (either via IDE configuration or different custom pre-build processing), then rest of the setup continues in a C standard way. Best regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: 23 September 2020 11:04 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Andrej, TF-M relies heavily on compile time configuration, and C is quiet limited on that. This means we cannot rely on the only standardized part of the "ecosystem" solely, and we have to use non-standard tools. I would love to have a portable automation solution supported by most IDEs. Yes, a lot of projects can go well with a single configuration header but unfortunately TF-M is more complex than that: * How could we get information from manifest files to the build? * How could we generate signed binary packages for the boot-loader? * How could we control memory map in sync with the hw configuration in source files? (The current pre-processing linker files approach is already non-standard.) None of these can be solved with IDEs in a portable way. I understand that adding IDE support for TF-M is challenging but the root cause is not how we implemented the build system, but how IDEs can handle the complexity needed by TF-M. /George From: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com<mailto:andrey.butok@nxp.com>> Sent: 23 September 2020 09:33 To: Gyorgy Szing <Gyorgy.Szing(a)arm.com<mailto:Gyorgy.Szing@arm.com>>; Ken Liu <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com<mailto:Ken.Liu@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: RE: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Ken, So we are using one default/typical configuration. If any change in it, a user have to do changes manually which are not clear without deeper knowledge of the TFM project. But this is the issue of the TF-M chosen approach - fully rely on cmake preprocessing. The proposal is to use approach which is good for all worlds (cmake and IDEs) and which is used by all embedded MCU open-source projects like MbedTLS, FreeRTOS, lwIP, FNET and etc. Which is to have only one set of platform-independent files and the framework configuration from a user/project configuration file. It will work for both worlds, will solve all configuration issues we have, and will make TF-M easy to use and more popular. I am talking about this from very beginning. As no steps in right direction, we have a forked TF-M for our SDK. Thanks George for support ;) Andrej Butok 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: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:45 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Andrej, Sounds like your IDE is using the default .sct/.ld file, may I ask some a question that: * Is there a scenario that someone wants to add more partitions other than the default ones into your system, and how could they do that? I believe the existing .sct/.ld do not support extra partitions out of the default ones unless some manually modification is done. We need to support more components (partition is the direct example), so in this case, the sct/ld can't be avoided to be modified. Or do you think if we put a specific .sct/.ld under nxp folder would work if there is no other partitions are needed? Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:46 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi, Good point, this is an important factor. I think templating can be IDE compliant as long as the IDE does support pre-build step(s). The current build flow already contains steps requiring this and thus I don't think situation would be much worse with any mentioned solution than it is today. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: 23 September 2020 08:33 To: Ken Liu <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com<mailto:Ken.Liu@arm.com>> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Please, do not add changes to sources & linker-files which may harm Non-Cmake systems (IDEs). Thanks, Andrej Butok 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: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:05 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder As cmake is still the build system, let me check the cmake related feature - but need to wait the build system change get merged then we can take a look where to start. BR. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:43 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: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Ken, I think templating is a good approach here, the current C preprocessor based solution is a very limited implementation of this. I see two main contenders for templating: 1. cmake has built in support for templating with the configure_file() [1] command. This would move ownership of this information info the build scripts, which are the focus point for such info already. A cmake based solution would feel more native to the existing system. On the other hand other solutions might have more features, which could lead to easier to read template files. Also cmake as a template engine is not that widely adopted. 2. jinja2 [2]. A widely adopted and more feature rich templating engine. TF-M already uses it for manifest file handling. I suggest using yahsa [3] instead of a custom pyhton script as the cli frontend though. This could speed up development as long as no complex processing is needed and the templates can be filled based on "simple" values. Which of the above is the best for the task depends on template file readability and on complexity of the task. It could be nice if a clean split could be made, and we could stop using the C preprocessor based processing completely. "Not sure if all these format support #include" The build system works around that by implementing a compiler specific cmake function to add the pre-processing step for compilers not supporting pre-processing out of the box. /George [1] https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.18/command/configure_file.html<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcmake.org…> [2] https://jinja.palletsprojects.com/en/2.11.x/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjinja.pal…> [3] https://github.com/kblomqvist/yasha<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…> 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: 22 September 2020 10:15 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi, During the level3 prototyping, we found using a unified sct/ld/file would be hard because we are trying to cover platform-specific setting in ONE place. The biggest concern of preventing spreading the LD is: if there are COMMON changes then every platform source needs to be updated. I believe the COMMON change is the arrangement of ARoT and PRoT, those platform-specific things such as CODE_SRAM and MPU alignment issue should not be covered inside the common sct/ld/icf. Not sure if all these format support #include but as we are using a template so it should be possible to put COMMON settings inside a COMMON template and let platform to contain these common part and then add the specific settings. I have a rough idea (see above) and need more investigation, request for ideas/concerns about this part. Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Shawn Shan via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:27 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi all, There are many differences in linker scripts between each platform. Using a common_s.sct/ld makes it too complicated. And at the same time, in order to achieve isolation level 3, the position of the sessions in scatter and linker script file needs to be adjusted. The common linker scripts would be more complicated with isolation L3. So I would like to propose to have dedicated linker scripts for platforms with enough differential arrangements. What's your opinion on this? Best regards, Shawn

5 years, 2 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi Andrej, TF-M relies heavily on compile time configuration, and C is quiet limited on that. This means we cannot rely on the only standardized part of the "ecosystem" solely, and we have to use non-standard tools. I would love to have a portable automation solution supported by most IDEs. Yes, a lot of projects can go well with a single configuration header but unfortunately TF-M is more complex than that: * How could we get information from manifest files to the build? * How could we generate signed binary packages for the boot-loader? * How could we control memory map in sync with the hw configuration in source files? (The current pre-processing linker files approach is already non-standard.) None of these can be solved with IDEs in a portable way. I understand that adding IDE support for TF-M is challenging but the root cause is not how we implemented the build system, but how IDEs can handle the complexity needed by TF-M. /George From: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com> Sent: 23 September 2020 09:33 To: Gyorgy Szing <Gyorgy.Szing(a)arm.com>; Ken Liu <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: RE: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Ken, So we are using one default/typical configuration. If any change in it, a user have to do changes manually which are not clear without deeper knowledge of the TFM project. But this is the issue of the TF-M chosen approach - fully rely on cmake preprocessing. The proposal is to use approach which is good for all worlds (cmake and IDEs) and which is used by all embedded MCU open-source projects like MbedTLS, FreeRTOS, lwIP, FNET and etc. Which is to have only one set of platform-independent files and the framework configuration from a user/project configuration file. It will work for both worlds, will solve all configuration issues we have, and will make TF-M easy to use and more popular. I am talking about this from very beginning. As no steps in right direction, we have a forked TF-M for our SDK. Thanks George for support ;) Andrej Butok 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: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:45 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Andrej, Sounds like your IDE is using the default .sct/.ld file, may I ask some a question that: * Is there a scenario that someone wants to add more partitions other than the default ones into your system, and how could they do that? I believe the existing .sct/.ld do not support extra partitions out of the default ones unless some manually modification is done. We need to support more components (partition is the direct example), so in this case, the sct/ld can't be avoided to be modified. Or do you think if we put a specific .sct/.ld under nxp folder would work if there is no other partitions are needed? Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:46 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi, Good point, this is an important factor. I think templating can be IDE compliant as long as the IDE does support pre-build step(s). The current build flow already contains steps requiring this and thus I don't think situation would be much worse with any mentioned solution than it is today. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: 23 September 2020 08:33 To: Ken Liu <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com<mailto:Ken.Liu@arm.com>> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Please, do not add changes to sources & linker-files which may harm Non-Cmake systems (IDEs). Thanks, Andrej Butok 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: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:05 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder As cmake is still the build system, let me check the cmake related feature - but need to wait the build system change get merged then we can take a look where to start. BR. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:43 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: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Ken, I think templating is a good approach here, the current C preprocessor based solution is a very limited implementation of this. I see two main contenders for templating: 1. cmake has built in support for templating with the configure_file() [1] command. This would move ownership of this information info the build scripts, which are the focus point for such info already. A cmake based solution would feel more native to the existing system. On the other hand other solutions might have more features, which could lead to easier to read template files. Also cmake as a template engine is not that widely adopted. 2. jinja2 [2]. A widely adopted and more feature rich templating engine. TF-M already uses it for manifest file handling. I suggest using yahsa [3] instead of a custom pyhton script as the cli frontend though. This could speed up development as long as no complex processing is needed and the templates can be filled based on "simple" values. Which of the above is the best for the task depends on template file readability and on complexity of the task. It could be nice if a clean split could be made, and we could stop using the C preprocessor based processing completely. "Not sure if all these format support #include" The build system works around that by implementing a compiler specific cmake function to add the pre-processing step for compilers not supporting pre-processing out of the box. /George [1] https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.18/command/configure_file.html<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcmake.org…> [2] https://jinja.palletsprojects.com/en/2.11.x/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjinja.pal…> [3] https://github.com/kblomqvist/yasha<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…> 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: 22 September 2020 10:15 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi, During the level3 prototyping, we found using a unified sct/ld/file would be hard because we are trying to cover platform-specific setting in ONE place. The biggest concern of preventing spreading the LD is: if there are COMMON changes then every platform source needs to be updated. I believe the COMMON change is the arrangement of ARoT and PRoT, those platform-specific things such as CODE_SRAM and MPU alignment issue should not be covered inside the common sct/ld/icf. Not sure if all these format support #include but as we are using a template so it should be possible to put COMMON settings inside a COMMON template and let platform to contain these common part and then add the specific settings. I have a rough idea (see above) and need more investigation, request for ideas/concerns about this part. Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Shawn Shan via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:27 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi all, There are many differences in linker scripts between each platform. Using a common_s.sct/ld makes it too complicated. And at the same time, in order to achieve isolation level 3, the position of the sessions in scatter and linker script file needs to be adjusted. The common linker scripts would be more complicated with isolation L3. So I would like to propose to have dedicated linker scripts for platforms with enough differential arrangements. What's your opinion on this? Best regards, Shawn

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder

by Ken Liu

Hi, Thanks for the input - this should be the goal we are approaching. I believe the updated build system has changed something, and I will raise an proposal based on that during October, let's discuss when the proposal is done. Before that, two more questions: * So if a user have to modify the file manually, will they work on the .sct directly, or the .sct.template? * Does your IDE support pre-build function? What kinds of command it could support? An IDE specific script or general shell commands or python? Thanks. /Ken From: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 3:33 PM To: Gyorgy Szing <Gyorgy.Szing(a)arm.com>; Ken Liu <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: RE: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Ken, So we are using one default/typical configuration. If any change in it, a user have to do changes manually which are not clear without deeper knowledge of the TFM project. But this is the issue of the TF-M chosen approach - fully rely on cmake preprocessing. The proposal is to use approach which is good for all worlds (cmake and IDEs) and which is used by all embedded MCU open-source projects like MbedTLS, FreeRTOS, lwIP, FNET and etc. Which is to have only one set of platform-independent files and the framework configuration from a user/project configuration file. It will work for both worlds, will solve all configuration issues we have, and will make TF-M easy to use and more popular. I am talking about this from very beginning. As no steps in right direction, we have a forked TF-M for our SDK. Thanks George for support ;) Andrej Butok 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: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:45 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Andrej, Sounds like your IDE is using the default .sct/.ld file, may I ask some a question that: * Is there a scenario that someone wants to add more partitions other than the default ones into your system, and how could they do that? I believe the existing .sct/.ld do not support extra partitions out of the default ones unless some manually modification is done. We need to support more components (partition is the direct example), so in this case, the sct/ld can't be avoided to be modified. Or do you think if we put a specific .sct/.ld under nxp folder would work if there is no other partitions are needed? Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:46 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi, Good point, this is an important factor. I think templating can be IDE compliant as long as the IDE does support pre-build step(s). The current build flow already contains steps requiring this and thus I don't think situation would be much worse with any mentioned solution than it is today. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: 23 September 2020 08:33 To: Ken Liu <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com<mailto:Ken.Liu@arm.com>> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Please, do not add changes to sources & linker-files which may harm Non-Cmake systems (IDEs). Thanks, Andrej Butok 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: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:05 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder As cmake is still the build system, let me check the cmake related feature - but need to wait the build system change get merged then we can take a look where to start. BR. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:43 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: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Ken, I think templating is a good approach here, the current C preprocessor based solution is a very limited implementation of this. I see two main contenders for templating: 1. cmake has built in support for templating with the configure_file() [1] command. This would move ownership of this information info the build scripts, which are the focus point for such info already. A cmake based solution would feel more native to the existing system. On the other hand other solutions might have more features, which could lead to easier to read template files. Also cmake as a template engine is not that widely adopted. 2. jinja2 [2]. A widely adopted and more feature rich templating engine. TF-M already uses it for manifest file handling. I suggest using yahsa [3] instead of a custom pyhton script as the cli frontend though. This could speed up development as long as no complex processing is needed and the templates can be filled based on "simple" values. Which of the above is the best for the task depends on template file readability and on complexity of the task. It could be nice if a clean split could be made, and we could stop using the C preprocessor based processing completely. "Not sure if all these format support #include" The build system works around that by implementing a compiler specific cmake function to add the pre-processing step for compilers not supporting pre-processing out of the box. /George [1] https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.18/command/configure_file.html<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcmake.org…> [2] https://jinja.palletsprojects.com/en/2.11.x/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjinja.pal…> [3] https://github.com/kblomqvist/yasha<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…> 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: 22 September 2020 10:15 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi, During the level3 prototyping, we found using a unified sct/ld/file would be hard because we are trying to cover platform-specific setting in ONE place. The biggest concern of preventing spreading the LD is: if there are COMMON changes then every platform source needs to be updated. I believe the COMMON change is the arrangement of ARoT and PRoT, those platform-specific things such as CODE_SRAM and MPU alignment issue should not be covered inside the common sct/ld/icf. Not sure if all these format support #include but as we are using a template so it should be possible to put COMMON settings inside a COMMON template and let platform to contain these common part and then add the specific settings. I have a rough idea (see above) and need more investigation, request for ideas/concerns about this part. Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Shawn Shan via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:27 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi all, There are many differences in linker scripts between each platform. Using a common_s.sct/ld makes it too complicated. And at the same time, in order to achieve isolation level 3, the position of the sessions in scatter and linker script file needs to be adjusted. The common linker scripts would be more complicated with isolation L3. So I would like to propose to have dedicated linker scripts for platforms with enough differential arrangements. What's your opinion on this? Best regards, Shawn

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi, Good point, this is an important factor. I think templating can be IDE compliant as long as the IDE does support pre-build step(s). The current build flow already contains steps requiring this and thus I don't think situation would be much worse with any mentioned solution than it is today. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: 23 September 2020 08:33 To: Ken Liu <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Please, do not add changes to sources & linker-files which may harm Non-Cmake systems (IDEs). Thanks, Andrej Butok 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: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:05 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder As cmake is still the build system, let me check the cmake related feature - but need to wait the build system change get merged then we can take a look where to start. BR. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:43 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: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Ken, I think templating is a good approach here, the current C preprocessor based solution is a very limited implementation of this. I see two main contenders for templating: 1. cmake has built in support for templating with the configure_file() [1] command. This would move ownership of this information info the build scripts, which are the focus point for such info already. A cmake based solution would feel more native to the existing system. On the other hand other solutions might have more features, which could lead to easier to read template files. Also cmake as a template engine is not that widely adopted. 2. jinja2 [2]. A widely adopted and more feature rich templating engine. TF-M already uses it for manifest file handling. I suggest using yahsa [3] instead of a custom pyhton script as the cli frontend though. This could speed up development as long as no complex processing is needed and the templates can be filled based on "simple" values. Which of the above is the best for the task depends on template file readability and on complexity of the task. It could be nice if a clean split could be made, and we could stop using the C preprocessor based processing completely. "Not sure if all these format support #include" The build system works around that by implementing a compiler specific cmake function to add the pre-processing step for compilers not supporting pre-processing out of the box. /George [1] https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.18/command/configure_file.html<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcmake.org…> [2] https://jinja.palletsprojects.com/en/2.11.x/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjinja.pal…> [3] https://github.com/kblomqvist/yasha<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…> 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: 22 September 2020 10:15 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi, During the level3 prototyping, we found using a unified sct/ld/file would be hard because we are trying to cover platform-specific setting in ONE place. The biggest concern of preventing spreading the LD is: if there are COMMON changes then every platform source needs to be updated. I believe the COMMON change is the arrangement of ARoT and PRoT, those platform-specific things such as CODE_SRAM and MPU alignment issue should not be covered inside the common sct/ld/icf. Not sure if all these format support #include but as we are using a template so it should be possible to put COMMON settings inside a COMMON template and let platform to contain these common part and then add the specific settings. I have a rough idea (see above) and need more investigation, request for ideas/concerns about this part. Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Shawn Shan via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:27 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi all, There are many differences in linker scripts between each platform. Using a common_s.sct/ld makes it too complicated. And at the same time, in order to achieve isolation level 3, the position of the sessions in scatter and linker script file needs to be adjusted. The common linker scripts would be more complicated with isolation L3. So I would like to propose to have dedicated linker scripts for platforms with enough differential arrangements. What's your opinion on this? Best regards, Shawn

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder

by Andrej Butok

Please, do not add changes to sources & linker-files which may harm Non-Cmake systems (IDEs). Thanks, Andrej Butok From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:05 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder As cmake is still the build system, let me check the cmake related feature - but need to wait the build system change get merged then we can take a look where to start. BR. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:43 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: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Ken, I think templating is a good approach here, the current C preprocessor based solution is a very limited implementation of this. I see two main contenders for templating: 1. cmake has built in support for templating with the configure_file() [1] command. This would move ownership of this information info the build scripts, which are the focus point for such info already. A cmake based solution would feel more native to the existing system. On the other hand other solutions might have more features, which could lead to easier to read template files. Also cmake as a template engine is not that widely adopted. 2. jinja2 [2]. A widely adopted and more feature rich templating engine. TF-M already uses it for manifest file handling. I suggest using yahsa [3] instead of a custom pyhton script as the cli frontend though. This could speed up development as long as no complex processing is needed and the templates can be filled based on "simple" values. Which of the above is the best for the task depends on template file readability and on complexity of the task. It could be nice if a clean split could be made, and we could stop using the C preprocessor based processing completely. "Not sure if all these format support #include" The build system works around that by implementing a compiler specific cmake function to add the pre-processing step for compilers not supporting pre-processing out of the box. /George [1] https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.18/command/configure_file.html<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcmake.org…> [2] https://jinja.palletsprojects.com/en/2.11.x/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjinja.pal…> [3] https://github.com/kblomqvist/yasha<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…> 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: 22 September 2020 10:15 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi, During the level3 prototyping, we found using a unified sct/ld/file would be hard because we are trying to cover platform-specific setting in ONE place. The biggest concern of preventing spreading the LD is: if there are COMMON changes then every platform source needs to be updated. I believe the COMMON change is the arrangement of ARoT and PRoT, those platform-specific things such as CODE_SRAM and MPU alignment issue should not be covered inside the common sct/ld/icf. Not sure if all these format support #include but as we are using a template so it should be possible to put COMMON settings inside a COMMON template and let platform to contain these common part and then add the specific settings. I have a rough idea (see above) and need more investigation, request for ideas/concerns about this part. Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Shawn Shan via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:27 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi all, There are many differences in linker scripts between each platform. Using a common_s.sct/ld makes it too complicated. And at the same time, in order to achieve isolation level 3, the position of the sessions in scatter and linker script file needs to be adjusted. The common linker scripts would be more complicated with isolation L3. So I would like to propose to have dedicated linker scripts for platforms with enough differential arrangements. What's your opinion on this? Best regards, Shawn

5 years, 2 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder

by Ken Liu

As cmake is still the build system, let me check the cmake related feature - but need to wait the build system change get merged then we can take a look where to start. BR. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:43 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi Ken, I think templating is a good approach here, the current C preprocessor based solution is a very limited implementation of this. I see two main contenders for templating: 1. cmake has built in support for templating with the configure_file() [1] command. This would move ownership of this information info the build scripts, which are the focus point for such info already. A cmake based solution would feel more native to the existing system. On the other hand other solutions might have more features, which could lead to easier to read template files. Also cmake as a template engine is not that widely adopted. 2. jinja2 [2]. A widely adopted and more feature rich templating engine. TF-M already uses it for manifest file handling. I suggest using yahsa [3] instead of a custom pyhton script as the cli frontend though. This could speed up development as long as no complex processing is needed and the templates can be filled based on "simple" values. Which of the above is the best for the task depends on template file readability and on complexity of the task. It could be nice if a clean split could be made, and we could stop using the C preprocessor based processing completely. "Not sure if all these format support #include" The build system works around that by implementing a compiler specific cmake function to add the pre-processing step for compilers not supporting pre-processing out of the box. /George [1] https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.18/command/configure_file.html [2] https://jinja.palletsprojects.com/en/2.11.x/ [3] https://github.com/kblomqvist/yasha 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: 22 September 2020 10:15 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi, During the level3 prototyping, we found using a unified sct/ld/file would be hard because we are trying to cover platform-specific setting in ONE place. The biggest concern of preventing spreading the LD is: if there are COMMON changes then every platform source needs to be updated. I believe the COMMON change is the arrangement of ARoT and PRoT, those platform-specific things such as CODE_SRAM and MPU alignment issue should not be covered inside the common sct/ld/icf. Not sure if all these format support #include but as we are using a template so it should be possible to put COMMON settings inside a COMMON template and let platform to contain these common part and then add the specific settings. I have a rough idea (see above) and need more investigation, request for ideas/concerns about this part. Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Shawn Shan via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:27 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi all, There are many differences in linker scripts between each platform. Using a common_s.sct/ld makes it too complicated. And at the same time, in order to achieve isolation level 3, the position of the sessions in scatter and linker script file needs to be adjusted. The common linker scripts would be more complicated with isolation L3. So I would like to propose to have dedicated linker scripts for platforms with enough differential arrangements. What's your opinion on this? Best regards, Shawn

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi Ken, I think templating is a good approach here, the current C preprocessor based solution is a very limited implementation of this. I see two main contenders for templating: 1. cmake has built in support for templating with the configure_file() [1] command. This would move ownership of this information info the build scripts, which are the focus point for such info already. A cmake based solution would feel more native to the existing system. On the other hand other solutions might have more features, which could lead to easier to read template files. Also cmake as a template engine is not that widely adopted. 2. jinja2 [2]. A widely adopted and more feature rich templating engine. TF-M already uses it for manifest file handling. I suggest using yahsa [3] instead of a custom pyhton script as the cli frontend though. This could speed up development as long as no complex processing is needed and the templates can be filled based on "simple" values. Which of the above is the best for the task depends on template file readability and on complexity of the task. It could be nice if a clean split could be made, and we could stop using the C preprocessor based processing completely. "Not sure if all these format support #include" The build system works around that by implementing a compiler specific cmake function to add the pre-processing step for compilers not supporting pre-processing out of the box. /George [1] https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.18/command/configure_file.html [2] https://jinja.palletsprojects.com/en/2.11.x/ [3] https://github.com/kblomqvist/yasha From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: 22 September 2020 10:15 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi, During the level3 prototyping, we found using a unified sct/ld/file would be hard because we are trying to cover platform-specific setting in ONE place. The biggest concern of preventing spreading the LD is: if there are COMMON changes then every platform source needs to be updated. I believe the COMMON change is the arrangement of ARoT and PRoT, those platform-specific things such as CODE_SRAM and MPU alignment issue should not be covered inside the common sct/ld/icf. Not sure if all these format support #include but as we are using a template so it should be possible to put COMMON settings inside a COMMON template and let platform to contain these common part and then add the specific settings. I have a rough idea (see above) and need more investigation, request for ideas/concerns about this part. Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Shawn Shan via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:27 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] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi all, There are many differences in linker scripts between each platform. Using a common_s.sct/ld makes it too complicated. And at the same time, in order to achieve isolation level 3, the position of the sessions in scatter and linker script file needs to be adjusted. The common linker scripts would be more complicated with isolation L3. So I would like to propose to have dedicated linker scripts for platforms with enough differential arrangements. What's your opinion on this? Best regards, Shawn

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder

by Ken Liu

Hi, During the level3 prototyping, we found using a unified sct/ld/file would be hard because we are trying to cover platform-specific setting in ONE place. The biggest concern of preventing spreading the LD is: if there are COMMON changes then every platform source needs to be updated. I believe the COMMON change is the arrangement of ARoT and PRoT, those platform-specific things such as CODE_SRAM and MPU alignment issue should not be covered inside the common sct/ld/icf. Not sure if all these format support #include but as we are using a template so it should be possible to put COMMON settings inside a COMMON template and let platform to contain these common part and then add the specific settings. I have a rough idea (see above) and need more investigation, request for ideas/concerns about this part. Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Shawn Shan via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:27 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder Hi all, There are many differences in linker scripts between each platform. Using a common_s.sct/ld makes it too complicated. And at the same time, in order to achieve isolation level 3, the position of the sessions in scatter and linker script file needs to be adjusted. The common linker scripts would be more complicated with isolation L3. So I would like to propose to have dedicated linker scripts for platforms with enough differential arrangements. What's your opinion on this? Best regards, Shawn

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Linaro Connect Sessions of Interest

by Don Harbin

Hi All, As Linaro Connect starts tomorrow, here are some pointers to sessions that will be of interest related to trustedfirmware.org. - *PSA Secure Partitions in OP-TEE* - Tuesday, September 22nd (1:25-1:50pm UTC) - Speaker: Miklos Balint - Slides available here <https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/lvc20/9a/LVC20-112_PSA_Secure_Partiti…> - *Trusted Firmware Project update* - Tuesday, Sept. 22nd (2:00-2:25pm UTC) - Spreaders: Matteo Carlini, Shebu Kuriakose - Slides available here <https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/lvc20/1e/LVC20-113-Trusted-Firmware-p…> - *Scalable Security Using Trusted Firmware-M Profiles* - Wednesday September 23rd (11.45am – 12.10pm UTC) - Speakers: Shebu Kuiakose, David Want - Slides available here <https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/lvc20/d0/ScalableSecurityUsingTrusted…> - *Enable UEFI Secure Boot using OP-TEE as Secure Partition* - Thursday September 24th (3.45-4.10pm UTC) - Speakers: Sahil Malhotra, Ilias Apalodimas - *Secure Partition Manager (SEL2 firmware) for Arm A-class devices* - Thursday September 24th (4.15-4.40pm UTC) - Speaker: Olivier Deprez - Slides are available here <https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/lvc20/09/LVC20-305-secure-partition-m…> Some general pointers to sessions of potential interest: - Security related topics can be viewed here - Boot architecture topics can be viewed here As a reminder, sign up for tomorrow's event is at Linaro Connect Registration <https://connect.linaro.org/> and is free, so feel free to forward this information on. :) The overall schedule is available at the same link as registration in case you may be interested in other sessions. Best regards, Don

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Patch to upgrade crypto service to use latest mbedTLS tag (v2.23.0)

by Soby Mathew

For the record, I have attached the full log of the PSA Arch Crypto test run on AN521. The SHA of respective repositories are the test run given below: TF-M - 8f895ab8 PSA Arch tests - ee3c463d tf-m-tests - 7789423 mbedtls - tag: mbedtls-2.23.0 There is an additional failure for test "psa_close_key with RSA 2048 keypair" compared to the summary report below. This is due to incorrect build flag propagation for changing the ITS_MAX_ASSET_SIZE. This will be corrected in the following days. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Soby Mathew via TF-M Sent: 21 August 2020 11:22 To: TF-M mailing list <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Patch to upgrade crypto service to use latest mbedTLS tag (v2.23.0) Just an update to this, I have merged the patch which upgrades to the latest mbedTLS tag. The PSA Arch initial attestation test suite fails to build after this merge due to width change of `ecc_curve_t` type. The issue is reported here in PSA Arch test github project : https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/pull/232 The patch for changing the ITS_MAX_ASSET_SIZE is still outstanding and I hope to merge it after a week. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Soby Mathew via TF-M Sent: 11 August 2020 16:24 To: TF-M mailing list <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Subject: [TF-M] Patch to upgrade crypto service to use latest mbedTLS tag (v2.23.0) Hi Everyone The following patch updates the crypto service in TF-M to use the latest mbedTLS tag v2.23.0. All reviews for the same will be much appreciated. https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5252/1 With this update, additional PSA APIs psa_hash_compute() and psa_hash_compare() are now supported. There is also another patch for platforms to update the ITS_MAX_ASSET_SIZE when testing with PSA Crypto API compliance test as one of the tests require a larger size: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5253/1 . Could the platform owners review the same and let me know whether the size changes are OK ? With the above patches, the API compliance remains the same as v1.0 Beta 3 and the PSA Crypto compliance test suite gives the below results (as tested on AN521) : ************ Crypto Suite Report ********** TOTAL TESTS : 61 TOTAL PASSED : 42 TOTAL SIM ERROR : 0 TOTAL FAILED : 17 TOTAL SKIPPED : 2 ****************************************** Best Regards Soby Mathes

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - September 17

by Summer Qin

Hi Anton, I'd like to briefly introduce the enhancement of the TF-M initialization flow, about 20 minutes. Regards, Summer ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Sherry Zhang via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 3:08 PM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - September 17 Hi Anton, I would like to give a very brief introduction of the integration work of TF-M and FreeRTOS Kernel which has been merged into FreeRTOS. It will take about 10 minutes around. Regards, Sherry From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 11:34 PM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - September 17 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, September 17 at 6:00-07:00 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

5 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - September 17

by Sherry Zhang

Hi Anton, I would like to give a very brief introduction of the integration work of TF-M and FreeRTOS Kernel which has been merged into FreeRTOS. It will take about 10 minutes around. Regards, Sherry From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 11:34 PM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - September 17 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, September 17 at 6:00-07:00 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

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - September 17

by Kevin Peng

Anton, I'd like to give an update on the HAL APIs, around 10 minutes. Best Regards, Kevin From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 11:34 PM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - September 17 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, September 17 at 6:00-07:00 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

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Secure Enclave solution in TF-M

by Mark Horvath

Dear All, Following the tech forum presentation (back in 6th August) I uploaded the draft design document for the Secure Enclave topic: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5653 I also updated the first implementation of the proposed solution for the Musca-B1 board with minimal features, marked as WIP: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22Secure+Enclave%22+(status:ope… Limitations, missing features, notes: * No support for isolation level2 on SSE-200 * Protected Storage is an Application RoT partition, but PS also moved to Secure Enclave * Some regression tests running on secure side of SSE-200 fail as all messages are forwarded with the same client ID to Secure Enclave * All IPC message forwarding is a blocking call * Only one message is put into the mailbox at a time * Musca-B1 related documentation is not complete yet * Generated files are not committed, manifest parser should be run before build. * The BL0 component mentioned in the tech forum presentation is not uploaded, as it is based on the new cmake system, and not so interesting right now * Cmake changes are rudimentary, will be rebased to new cmake system. Any feedback very welcomed! Best regards, Márk Horváth Senior Software Engineer Mark.Horvath(a)arm.com<mailto:Mark.Horvath@arm.com> Arm Hungary Kft., Corvin Offices II, Crystal Tower, Budapest, Futó u. 45. H-1082 Hungary www.arm.com<http://www.arm.com/>

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Integration of TF-M and FreeRTOS Kernel has been merged into FreeRTOS

by Anton Komlev

Great news! Congratulations, Shery, David. You made it happen! Cheers, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David Wang via TF-M Sent: 14 September 2020 04:47 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Sherry Zhang <Sherry.Zhang2(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Integration of TF-M and FreeRTOS Kernel has been merged into FreeRTOS Thanks Sherry for sharing this great news! Regards, David Wang From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Sherry Zhang via TF-M Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:50 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] Integration of TF-M and FreeRTOS Kernel has been merged into FreeRTOS Hi all, The integration of TF-M and FreeRTOS Kernel has been merged into the official FreeRTOS Kernel repository<https://github.com/FreeRTOS/FreeRTOS-Kernel> master branch. You can follow this port<https://github.com/FreeRTOS/FreeRTOS-Kernel/tree/master/portable/ThirdParty…> on Cortex-M33 platforms. Regards, Sherry Zhang

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Integration of TF-M and FreeRTOS Kernel has been merged into FreeRTOS

by David Wang

Thanks Sherry for sharing this great news! Regards, David Wang From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Sherry Zhang via TF-M Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:50 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Integration of TF-M and FreeRTOS Kernel has been merged into FreeRTOS Hi all, The integration of TF-M and FreeRTOS Kernel has been merged into the official FreeRTOS Kernel repository<https://github.com/FreeRTOS/FreeRTOS-Kernel> master branch. You can follow this port<https://github.com/FreeRTOS/FreeRTOS-Kernel/tree/master/portable/ThirdParty…> on Cortex-M33 platforms. Regards, Sherry Zhang

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Integration of TF-M and FreeRTOS Kernel has been merged into FreeRTOS

by Sherry Zhang

Hi all, The integration of TF-M and FreeRTOS Kernel has been merged into the official FreeRTOS Kernel repository<https://github.com/FreeRTOS/FreeRTOS-Kernel> master branch. You can follow this port<https://github.com/FreeRTOS/FreeRTOS-Kernel/tree/master/portable/ThirdParty…> on Cortex-M33 platforms. Regards, Sherry Zhang

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] The GNUARM linker script change about psa_client objects and the integration method [NXP]

by Ken Liu

Hi Andrej, Thanks, if the different approach for project compilation has its own ld file then we can remove these 4 lines - going to create a patch for this. BR /Ken From: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 9:10 PM To: Ken Liu <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: RE: The GNUARM linker script change about psa_client objects and the integration method [NXP] Hi Ken, Guess, these lines where upstream from NXP SDK, which is using a different approach for project compilation. Most probably they may be removed for the original TFM. Best regards, Andrej 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: Friday, September 11, 2020 3:04 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] The GNUARM linker script change about psa_client objects and the integration method [NXP] Hi, When I was trying to re-arrange the linker script I found below changes: *psa_client.*(.text*) /* NXP */ *psa_client.*(.rodata*) *psa_service.*(.text*) /* NXP */ *psa_service.*(.rodata*) *psa_lifecycle.*(.text*) /* NXP */ *psa_lifecycle.*(.rodata*) *tfm_log_raw.*(.text*) /* NXP */ I think at least the psa_client.o and psa_service.o are included into the libtfmsprt.a so these items looks duplicated. What is the purpose of this change? Would it fix build problem or runtime problem? Thanks. /Ken

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

The GNUARM linker script change about psa_client objects and the integration method [NXP]

by Ken Liu

Hi, When I was trying to re-arrange the linker script I found below changes: *psa_client.*(.text*) /* NXP */ *psa_client.*(.rodata*) *psa_service.*(.text*) /* NXP */ *psa_service.*(.rodata*) *psa_lifecycle.*(.text*) /* NXP */ *psa_lifecycle.*(.rodata*) *tfm_log_raw.*(.text*) /* NXP */ I think at least the psa_client.o and psa_service.o are included into the libtfmsprt.a so these items looks duplicated. What is the purpose of this change? Would it fix build problem or runtime problem? Thanks. /Ken

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Test message - please ignore

by Bill Fletcher

.. -- [image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/> *Bill Fletcher* | *Field Engineering* T: +44 7833 498336 <+44+7833+498336> bill.fletcher(a)linaro.org | Skype: billfletcher2020

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Test message please ignore

by Bill Fletcher

. -- [image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/> *Bill Fletcher* | *Field Engineering* T: +44 7833 498336 <+44+7833+498336> bill.fletcher(a)linaro.org | Skype: billfletcher2020

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Skip GNUARM startup initialization

by Summer Qin

Hi, There is no forwarded define for '__START' in the current TF-M design, then the runtime init provided by toolchain is applied. This runtime init did something unnecessary as the data copying and ZI has been done already by the startup code, jumping to spm::main would be the next job as SPM would prepare runtime environment for subsequent partition execution and itself won't need other runtime operations besides the data moving. I have created a patch to jump to main under GNUARM: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5609 Change the code is because this would easy the code reading -- most of the users won't check a compiler flag given in the build system for forwarding '__START', so they will try to find the __start from the toolchain source. Currently, we can not avoid depending on ARMCLANG runtime init, so need double check (also IAR). Please provide your feedback, we are changing the platform startup code and need your confirmation to see if it is applicable. Best Regards, Summer

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

TF-M Technical Forum call - September 17

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, September 17 at 6:00-07:00 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

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up

by Raef Coles

Note that it's also still possible to use the "old style" cmake syntax: ``` mkdir build cd build cmake -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake .. make ``` Ninja is also supported as a generator by using ``` mkdir build cd build cmake -GNinja -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake .. ninja ``` This has been noted in the updated build documentation patch, which will be pushed to review.trustedfirmware.org as soon as possible (with other bugfixes, including both of the bugs encountered earlier in the email chain). Raef ________________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Anton Komlev via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 09 September 2020 08:58 To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' Cc: nd Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up Great to hear that that. BTW, instead of building all targets using “install” You can build a specific target separately by: cmake --build cmake_build --target <target> To list the targets available. use: cmake --build cmake_build --target help Cheers, Anton From: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com> Sent: 08 September 2020 22:30 To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: RE: TF-M build system update heads-up Thanks, Anton. That does work. The command I ran was definitely correct – I’ve tried switching back-and-forth between “-B” and “--build”, and they consistently fail and succeed, respectively. I’ve also seen my email client change “--” to “—“. I’m running cmake 3.18.2 on Ubuntu 18.04. Chris 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: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 1:13 PM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Chris, Could you try this: cmake --build cmake_build -- install Please note, when I copied your command the minus sign “-” was incorrect – probably a dash or hyphen sign. Need double check the doc. Hope it helps, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: 08 September 2020 19:48 To: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.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] TF-M build system update heads-up Hi, Sorry to hear that. When you manage to find out the culprit please drop an email to the list. I am really curious. /George From: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.com>> Sent: 08 September 2020 19:08 To: Gyorgy Szing <Gyorgy.Szing(a)arm.com<mailto:Gyorgy.Szing@arm.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 build system update heads-up Thanks, Gyorgy. I did indeed have the double dash (pretty sure I just copied and pasted from the doc). I guess my email client decided to “fix it in the mail message. Chris From: Gyorgy Szing <Gyorgy.Szing(a)arm.com<mailto:Gyorgy.Szing@arm.com>> Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2020 5:42 AM To: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Chris, You need two dashes before install. Options with a single dash are processed by cmake. Options after a double dash (--) are passed over to the build tool (in this case gnumake). (See the cmake documentation [1].) So: cmake -B cmake_build -- install is the correct command. [cid:image001.png@01D68687.0FBC1660] I attached an image above to work around potential readability issues of some font sets. I hope it gets trough. [1] https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.0/manual/cmake.1.html /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: 05 September 2020 00:26 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up Thanks, Anton. I tried again today, and got further – the first cmake command seems to succeed, but the second failed. I used git fetch "https://review.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m" refs/changes/72/5472/1 && git checkout FETCH_HEAD to get the tree, followed by cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=debug and then cmake -B cmake_build – install This error seems like something trivial: CMake Error: The source directory “…/trusted-firmware-m/install" does not exist. Chris 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, September 3, 2020 11:35 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Chris, Thanks for trying. Please specify the build type explicitly: -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=debug It shall be defaulted to “MinSizeRel", but something went wrong. Will be fixed asap. Good luck, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: 03 September 2020 19:10 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up I tried to build PSoC64 with the new build system a couple of days ago, and wasn’t successful. Following docs/getting_started/tfm_build_instruction.rst (the “Example: building TF-M for AN521 platform using GCC:” section), I ran cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake That failed : CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:107 (if): if given arguments: "STREQUAL" "DEBUG" "OR" "STREQUAL" "Debug" "OR" "STREQUAL" "debug" Unknown arguments specified Looking at that file it seemed that the default for CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE wasn’t being applied, so I tried this command: cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=MinSizeRel That got further, but failed with: CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:115 (target_include_directories): Cannot specify include directories for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:120 (target_compile_definitions): Cannot specify compile definitions for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:130 (target_sources): Cannot specify sources for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:135 (target_link_libraries): Cannot specify link libraries for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project. At that point, I gave up. Chris 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, September 3, 2020 10:04 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, As I mentioned in the Open Tech Forum today – we are close to merge the new build system to the master branch. Plan to start doing that at the beginning of the next week. It might cause code freeze for several days and minor problems in corner cases after that. The intention is to clean it out before the next release in November. All changes to merge are in feature-ux-buildsystem branch at the moment. Please signal if it conflicts with your plans. Regards, Anton 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. 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. 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. 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.

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] PSA tests: NVMEM section

by David Hu

Hi Øyvind, IMOO, such a NVME area is psa-arch-tests dedicated requirement, instead of TF-M implementation or FF-M definitions. I'd suggest to ask for more details in https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/. FYI a patch from psa-arch-test to enable such a NVME area in TF-M: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/3360 Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Rønningstad, Øyvind via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:48 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] PSA tests: NVMEM section According to psa-arch-tests[1] the tests need an NVMEM area to write its states to. "Non-volatile memory support to preserve test status over watchdog timer reset. Each byte of this region must be initialised to FF at power on reset." I could not find any code that does this in the TF-M or PSA repos. How do other platforms reserve and manage this 1k area. [1]: https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/blob/master/api-tests/docs/p…

5 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up

by Christopher Brand

Thanks, Anton. That does work. The command I ran was definitely correct – I’ve tried switching back-and-forth between “-B” and “--build”, and they consistently fail and succeed, respectively. I’ve also seen my email client change “--” to “—“. I’m running cmake 3.18.2 on Ubuntu 18.04. Chris From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 1:13 PM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Chris, Could you try this: cmake --build cmake_build -- install Please note, when I copied your command the minus sign “-” was incorrect – probably a dash or hyphen sign. Need double check the doc. Hope it helps, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: 08 September 2020 19:48 To: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.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] TF-M build system update heads-up Hi, Sorry to hear that. When you manage to find out the culprit please drop an email to the list. I am really curious. /George From: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.com>> Sent: 08 September 2020 19:08 To: Gyorgy Szing <Gyorgy.Szing(a)arm.com<mailto:Gyorgy.Szing@arm.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 build system update heads-up Thanks, Gyorgy. I did indeed have the double dash (pretty sure I just copied and pasted from the doc). I guess my email client decided to “fix it in the mail message. Chris From: Gyorgy Szing <Gyorgy.Szing(a)arm.com<mailto:Gyorgy.Szing@arm.com>> Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2020 5:42 AM To: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Chris, You need two dashes before install. Options with a single dash are processed by cmake. Options after a double dash (--) are passed over to the build tool (in this case gnumake). (See the cmake documentation [1].) So: cmake -B cmake_build -- install is the correct command. [cid:image001.png@01D685EC.35B811C0] I attached an image above to work around potential readability issues of some font sets. I hope it gets trough. [1] https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.0/manual/cmake.1.html /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: 05 September 2020 00:26 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up Thanks, Anton. I tried again today, and got further – the first cmake command seems to succeed, but the second failed. I used git fetch "https://review.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m" refs/changes/72/5472/1 && git checkout FETCH_HEAD to get the tree, followed by cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=debug and then cmake -B cmake_build – install This error seems like something trivial: CMake Error: The source directory “…/trusted-firmware-m/install" does not exist. Chris 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, September 3, 2020 11:35 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Chris, Thanks for trying. Please specify the build type explicitly: -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=debug It shall be defaulted to “MinSizeRel", but something went wrong. Will be fixed asap. Good luck, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: 03 September 2020 19:10 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up I tried to build PSoC64 with the new build system a couple of days ago, and wasn’t successful. Following docs/getting_started/tfm_build_instruction.rst (the “Example: building TF-M for AN521 platform using GCC:” section), I ran cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake That failed : CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:107 (if): if given arguments: "STREQUAL" "DEBUG" "OR" "STREQUAL" "Debug" "OR" "STREQUAL" "debug" Unknown arguments specified Looking at that file it seemed that the default for CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE wasn’t being applied, so I tried this command: cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=MinSizeRel That got further, but failed with: CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:115 (target_include_directories): Cannot specify include directories for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:120 (target_compile_definitions): Cannot specify compile definitions for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:130 (target_sources): Cannot specify sources for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:135 (target_link_libraries): Cannot specify link libraries for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project. At that point, I gave up. Chris 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, September 3, 2020 10:04 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, As I mentioned in the Open Tech Forum today – we are close to merge the new build system to the master branch. Plan to start doing that at the beginning of the next week. It might cause code freeze for several days and minor problems in corner cases after that. The intention is to clean it out before the next release in November. All changes to merge are in feature-ux-buildsystem branch at the moment. Please signal if it conflicts with your plans. Regards, Anton 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. 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. 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. 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.

5 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

PSA tests: NVMEM section

by Rønningstad, Øyvind

According to psa-arch-tests[1] the tests need an NVMEM area to write its states to. "Non-volatile memory support to preserve test status over watchdog timer reset. Each byte of this region must be initialised to FF at power on reset." I could not find any code that does this in the TF-M or PSA repos. How do other platforms reserve and manage this 1k area. [1]: https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/blob/master/api-tests/docs/p…

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging

by Ken Liu

Hi, A new branch created for two repos 'TF-M/tf-m-tests' and 'TF-M/trusted-firmware-m', this feature branch is for isolation related patches merging. The POC patches would come in following days, first platform would be AN521. If you want to try this branch, please: IMPORTANT: Checkout 'feature-isoaltion-level3' branch for both 'TF-M/tf-m-tests' and 'TF-M/trusted-firmware-m'. BR /Ken

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up

by Anton Komlev

Hi Chris, Could you try this: cmake --build cmake_build -- install Please note, when I copied your command the minus sign “-” was incorrect – probably a dash or hyphen sign. Need double check the doc. Hope it helps, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: 08 September 2020 19:48 To: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up Hi, Sorry to hear that. When you manage to find out the culprit please drop an email to the list. I am really curious. /George From: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.com>> Sent: 08 September 2020 19:08 To: Gyorgy Szing <Gyorgy.Szing(a)arm.com<mailto:Gyorgy.Szing@arm.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 build system update heads-up Thanks, Gyorgy. I did indeed have the double dash (pretty sure I just copied and pasted from the doc). I guess my email client decided to “fix it in the mail message. Chris From: Gyorgy Szing <Gyorgy.Szing(a)arm.com<mailto:Gyorgy.Szing@arm.com>> Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2020 5:42 AM To: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Chris, You need two dashes before install. Options with a single dash are processed by cmake. Options after a double dash (--) are passed over to the build tool (in this case gnumake). (See the cmake documentation [1].) So: cmake -B cmake_build -- install is the correct command. [cid:image001.png@01D68623.8624BBE0] I attached an image above to work around potential readability issues of some font sets. I hope it gets trough. [1] https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.0/manual/cmake.1.html /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: 05 September 2020 00:26 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up Thanks, Anton. I tried again today, and got further – the first cmake command seems to succeed, but the second failed. I used git fetch "https://review.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m" refs/changes/72/5472/1 && git checkout FETCH_HEAD to get the tree, followed by cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=debug and then cmake -B cmake_build – install This error seems like something trivial: CMake Error: The source directory “…/trusted-firmware-m/install" does not exist. Chris 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, September 3, 2020 11:35 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Chris, Thanks for trying. Please specify the build type explicitly: -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=debug It shall be defaulted to “MinSizeRel", but something went wrong. Will be fixed asap. Good luck, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: 03 September 2020 19:10 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up I tried to build PSoC64 with the new build system a couple of days ago, and wasn’t successful. Following docs/getting_started/tfm_build_instruction.rst (the “Example: building TF-M for AN521 platform using GCC:” section), I ran cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake That failed : CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:107 (if): if given arguments: "STREQUAL" "DEBUG" "OR" "STREQUAL" "Debug" "OR" "STREQUAL" "debug" Unknown arguments specified Looking at that file it seemed that the default for CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE wasn’t being applied, so I tried this command: cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=MinSizeRel That got further, but failed with: CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:115 (target_include_directories): Cannot specify include directories for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:120 (target_compile_definitions): Cannot specify compile definitions for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:130 (target_sources): Cannot specify sources for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:135 (target_link_libraries): Cannot specify link libraries for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project. At that point, I gave up. Chris 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, September 3, 2020 10:04 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, As I mentioned in the Open Tech Forum today – we are close to merge the new build system to the master branch. Plan to start doing that at the beginning of the next week. It might cause code freeze for several days and minor problems in corner cases after that. The intention is to clean it out before the next release in November. All changes to merge are in feature-ux-buildsystem branch at the moment. Please signal if it conflicts with your plans. Regards, Anton 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. 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. 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.

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi Chris, You need two dashes before install. Options with a single dash are processed by cmake. Options after a double dash (--) are passed over to the build tool (in this case gnumake). (See the cmake documentation [1].) So: cmake -B cmake_build -- install is the correct command. [cid:image001.png@01D68392.B953F780] I attached an image above to work around potential readability issues of some font sets. I hope it gets trough. [1] https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.0/manual/cmake.1.html /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: 05 September 2020 00:26 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up Thanks, Anton. I tried again today, and got further – the first cmake command seems to succeed, but the second failed. I used git fetch "https://review.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m" refs/changes/72/5472/1 && git checkout FETCH_HEAD to get the tree, followed by cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=debug and then cmake -B cmake_build – install This error seems like something trivial: CMake Error: The source directory “…/trusted-firmware-m/install" does not exist. Chris 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, September 3, 2020 11:35 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Chris, Thanks for trying. Please specify the build type explicitly: -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=debug It shall be defaulted to “MinSizeRel", but something went wrong. Will be fixed asap. Good luck, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: 03 September 2020 19:10 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up I tried to build PSoC64 with the new build system a couple of days ago, and wasn’t successful. Following docs/getting_started/tfm_build_instruction.rst (the “Example: building TF-M for AN521 platform using GCC:” section), I ran cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake That failed : CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:107 (if): if given arguments: "STREQUAL" "DEBUG" "OR" "STREQUAL" "Debug" "OR" "STREQUAL" "debug" Unknown arguments specified Looking at that file it seemed that the default for CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE wasn’t being applied, so I tried this command: cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=MinSizeRel That got further, but failed with: CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:115 (target_include_directories): Cannot specify include directories for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:120 (target_compile_definitions): Cannot specify compile definitions for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:130 (target_sources): Cannot specify sources for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:135 (target_link_libraries): Cannot specify link libraries for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project. At that point, I gave up. Chris 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, September 3, 2020 10:04 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, As I mentioned in the Open Tech Forum today – we are close to merge the new build system to the master branch. Plan to start doing that at the beginning of the next week. It might cause code freeze for several days and minor problems in corner cases after that. The intention is to clean it out before the next release in November. All changes to merge are in feature-ux-buildsystem branch at the moment. Please signal if it conflicts with your plans. Regards, Anton 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. 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.

5 years, 3 months

2
2
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up

by Christopher Brand

Thanks, Anton. I tried again today, and got further - the first cmake command seems to succeed, but the second failed. I used git fetch "https://review.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m" refs/changes/72/5472/1 && git checkout FETCH_HEAD to get the tree, followed by cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=debug and then cmake -B cmake_build - install This error seems like something trivial: CMake Error: The source directory ".../trusted-firmware-m/install" does not exist. Chris From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 11:35 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Chris, Thanks for trying. Please specify the build type explicitly: -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=debug It shall be defaulted to "MinSizeRel", but something went wrong. Will be fixed asap. Good luck, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: 03 September 2020 19:10 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up I tried to build PSoC64 with the new build system a couple of days ago, and wasn't successful. Following docs/getting_started/tfm_build_instruction.rst (the "Example: building TF-M for AN521 platform using GCC:" section), I ran cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake That failed : CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:107 (if): if given arguments: "STREQUAL" "DEBUG" "OR" "STREQUAL" "Debug" "OR" "STREQUAL" "debug" Unknown arguments specified Looking at that file it seemed that the default for CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE wasn't being applied, so I tried this command: cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=MinSizeRel That got further, but failed with: CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:115 (target_include_directories): Cannot specify include directories for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:120 (target_compile_definitions): Cannot specify compile definitions for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:130 (target_sources): Cannot specify sources for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:135 (target_link_libraries): Cannot specify link libraries for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project. At that point, I gave up. Chris 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, September 3, 2020 10:04 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, As I mentioned in the Open Tech Forum today - we are close to merge the new build system to the master branch. Plan to start doing that at the beginning of the next week. It might cause code freeze for several days and minor problems in corner cases after that. The intention is to clean it out before the next release in November. All changes to merge are in feature-ux-buildsystem branch at the moment. Please signal if it conflicts with your plans. Regards, Anton 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. 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.

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M

by Robert Rostohar

Hi Soby, Hi Ken, Thanks for your replies. As mentioned before, majority of device vendors already provide system files (CMSIS standard) which configure also FPU. Take a look for example at the system file provided for STM32L5xx device family (part of STM32CubeL5 FW): https://github.com/STMicroelectronics/STM32CubeL5/blob/master/Drivers/CMSIS… Porting TF-M to a new device should be even simpler when such files can be used directly (or with as less modifications as possible). I'm not just looking at the few platforms that are directly supported within TF-M repo but rather how to reduce efforts to enable TF-M on any CMSIS-Core compliant device. Note: If current system files provided by vendors do not properly configure security features then this should be highlighted. Best regards, Robert From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Soby Mathew via TF-M Sent: Wednesday 2 September 2020 16:00 To: Ken Liu <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M Hi Robert, The current architecture abstraction depends on the some CMSIS standard macros (like __FPU_USED) to be defined and if there are vendor tools which can generate the same system file, as long as they are using the standard macros, the architecture abstraction should work alright if the generated file can be included. As Ken says, this makes architecture initialization uniform across platforms and provides the right settings to be applied for security. It also reduces the platform porting effort for new platforms. Hence the move in such a direction. If we allow a mechanism to allow the platform provided system file to be used rather than the default system file, will that suffice your requirement ? Best Regards Soby Mathew 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: 02 September 2020 11:11 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] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M Hi Robert, Thanks for the comment, just want to double check if the guidelines for vendors who providing platform sources to a secure software covers the recommendations here: https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-m/2020-June/001007.html As far as we can see not all existing platforms set the registers required in the above recommendation (In Jamie's second patch), so we are trying to provide an architecture-abstraction. Meanwhile, we would notify the platform owner checking the platform-specific setting. After all platform vendor confirmed the setting of FPU we can leave this back to platform setting as you suggested - but secure firmware core logic still needs to check if platform set the FPU setting correctly. @Soby @Jamie, please update if I missed something. BR /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Robert Rostohar via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 5:30 PM To: Jamie Fox <Jamie.Fox(a)arm.com<mailto:Jamie.Fox@arm.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] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M Hi Jamie, I have concerns with moving FPU configuration from platform to architecture-abstraction layer. FPU configuration is typically configured within system configuration files that are standardized in CMSIS and provided by device vendors. Some vendors provide also tools that auto-generate the system file based on user configuration (ex: STM32CubeMX). Therefore it would be better to leave the FPU configuration to the platform rather than moving it into architecture-abstraction. Best regards, Robert From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Jamie Fox via TF-M Sent: Friday 28 August 2020 19:53 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] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M Hi all, There is a change open for review that adds configuration of FPU-related registers to the architecture-abstraction layer in TF-M, and removes this same configuration from platform support files. The reasoning for this is that these registers are defined by the Arm architecture, so FPU config can be unified for all platforms with the same architecture. For Armv8-M, this also includes configuration to ensure that information is not leaked in FPU registers to NSPE when the SPE uses the FPU, and to permit the NSPE to access the FPU. By default, TF-M will still be built without the FPU used in the SPE. You can review the changes at: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5405 Arch: Add function to configure coprocessors https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5406 Platform: Remove platform-specific FPU config It would be especially helpful if platform owners could check that they are happy with FPU config being moved out of the platform support files. Kind regards, Jamie

5 years, 3 months

2
3
0 0

TF-M fault injection mitigation

by Tamas Ban

Hi, If you found yesterday the HW fault injection mitigation topic interesting and it raised your attention then you can find detailed info about it here: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/whatyouc.pdf https://www.riscure.com/uploads/2018/11/201708_Riscure_Whitepaper_Side_Chan… The PRs to MCUBoot are here: https://github.com/JuulLabs-OSS/mcuboot/pull/776 https://github.com/JuulLabs-OSS/mcuboot/pull/789 Tamas

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up

by Anton Komlev

Hi Chris, Thanks for trying. Please specify the build type explicitly: -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=debug It shall be defaulted to "MinSizeRel", but something went wrong. Will be fixed asap. Good luck, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: 03 September 2020 19:10 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up I tried to build PSoC64 with the new build system a couple of days ago, and wasn't successful. Following docs/getting_started/tfm_build_instruction.rst (the "Example: building TF-M for AN521 platform using GCC:" section), I ran cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake That failed : CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:107 (if): if given arguments: "STREQUAL" "DEBUG" "OR" "STREQUAL" "Debug" "OR" "STREQUAL" "debug" Unknown arguments specified Looking at that file it seemed that the default for CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE wasn't being applied, so I tried this command: cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=MinSizeRel That got further, but failed with: CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:115 (target_include_directories): Cannot specify include directories for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:120 (target_compile_definitions): Cannot specify compile definitions for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:130 (target_sources): Cannot specify sources for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:135 (target_link_libraries): Cannot specify link libraries for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project. At that point, I gave up. Chris 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, September 3, 2020 10:04 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <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 build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, As I mentioned in the Open Tech Forum today - we are close to merge the new build system to the master branch. Plan to start doing that at the beginning of the next week. It might cause code freeze for several days and minor problems in corner cases after that. The intention is to clean it out before the next release in November. All changes to merge are in feature-ux-buildsystem branch at the moment. Please signal if it conflicts with your plans. Regards, Anton 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.

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up

by Christopher Brand

I tried to build PSoC64 with the new build system a couple of days ago, and wasn't successful. Following docs/getting_started/tfm_build_instruction.rst (the "Example: building TF-M for AN521 platform using GCC:" section), I ran cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake That failed : CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:107 (if): if given arguments: "STREQUAL" "DEBUG" "OR" "STREQUAL" "Debug" "OR" "STREQUAL" "debug" Unknown arguments specified Looking at that file it seemed that the default for CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE wasn't being applied, so I tried this command: cmake -S . -B cmake_build -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=MinSizeRel That got further, but failed with: CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:115 (target_include_directories): Cannot specify include directories for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:120 (target_compile_definitions): Cannot specify compile definitions for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:130 (target_sources): Cannot specify sources for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project.CMake Error at secure_fw/partitions/crypto/CMakeLists.txt:135 (target_link_libraries): Cannot specify link libraries for target "mbedcrypto_crypto_service" which is not built by this project. At that point, I gave up. Chris From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:04 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M build system update heads-up CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, As I mentioned in the Open Tech Forum today - we are close to merge the new build system to the master branch. Plan to start doing that at the beginning of the next week. It might cause code freeze for several days and minor problems in corner cases after that. The intention is to clean it out before the next release in November. All changes to merge are in feature-ux-buildsystem branch at the moment. Please signal if it conflicts with your plans. Regards, Anton 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.

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

TF-M build system update heads-up

by Anton Komlev

Hello, As I mentioned in the Open Tech Forum today - we are close to merge the new build system to the master branch. Plan to start doing that at the beginning of the next week. It might cause code freeze for several days and minor problems in corner cases after that. The intention is to clean it out before the next release in November. All changes to merge are in feature-ux-buildsystem branch at the moment. Please signal if it conflicts with your plans. Regards, Anton

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

New build system with IAR

by Thomas Törnblom

I've started looking at the new build system, and it looks like a nice improvement. I have a problem, that likely has a simple solution, although I'm not sure which. I've looked at the AN521 target, and the preload.cmake file is included very early from the root CMakeLists.txt The first line of preload.cmake is: --- set(CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR cortex-m33+nodsp) --- For IAR that line should be: --- set(CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR Cortex-M33.no_dsp) --- I need to discriminate between the toolchains already there, but I haven't figured out what the best way would be to do that. Not much is setup at this moment in the run. Ideas? 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>

5 years, 3 months

1
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Simpler integration into other projects

by Anton Komlev

Hi Øyvind, Thank you for the proposal. Believe all agreed that NS side shall be separated from S side and be OS independent. There were multiple efforts recently toward this direction like repo split and build system refactoring. I think currently we almost achieve it. Assume you have seen that new build system allows creates S, NS, BL targets independently. Could you specify the remaining dependencies, you concern? Thanks, Anton -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Rønningstad, Øyvind via TF-M Sent: 02 September 2020 13:31 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Simpler integration into other projects Hi list I have a proposal to make it easier to integrate TF-M into other existing projects, e.g. RTOSes such as Zephyr. I'm using Zephyr as an example, but I mean that it should apply to any external project that wants to integrate TF-M. I'm assuming the project wants to use the secure FW as is, so no change is needed there. However, in the NS FW we want to integrate the NS callable (PSA) API into native Zephyr applications, but the NS ("app") part of TF-M has some OS dependencies that interfere with this. My proposal is that the TF-M build system creates OS-independent NS libs that can be linked directly into the native Zephyr app. Ideally, the Zephyr build system should need to only do the following: - Call TF-M build system. - Retrieve S binaries (and optionally mcuboot binary). - Link NS lib(s) into project app. - Add include directories to NS callable API. Additionally, the RTOS will likely need to make an OS wrapper to support the OS functions needed. Please tell me your thoughts. I'm not an expert in Cmake and libs, so please also tell me if the above is infeasible in any way. I think making such integrations as simple as possible will be very beneficial, not just when doing the initial integration, but continuously, since changes in TF-M will eventually require tweaks in the integration. Best regards, Øyvind Rønningstad -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch

by Soby Mathew

Thanks Gyorgy for your inputs. My only concern with git hooks is that they are triggered when patches are pushed for review whereas checkpatch is something needs to be frequently run for non-trivial patchsets. The other issue is I am not sure whether we can pass different arguments to githooks whereas build system integration allows that (for example check the entire tree vs only the changed lines). Also having it part of regular build allows easier integration with work flow. Hence many OSS projects integrate this into regular build for this reason. But as you say, perhaps the first solution is to download the script and run locally and I don't have a strong opinion against git hooks either. Whatever works best can be used. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: 02 September 2020 15:25 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch Hi, My two cents on the topic. Sort term Sort term it is possible to clone the ci-scripts repository and to run the check-patch script locally (https://git.trustedfirmware.org/ci/tf-m-ci-scripts.git/tree/run-checkpatch.…) . The script has some in-line documentation. Long term I think this is an automation topic which may have a connection to the build system, but the right place for a solution in not there. When it comes to automation the best is to differentiate two use cases: 1. Centralized. This is where the automation happens on a server, and the main purpose is to keep authentic records about quality, or to drive delivery (i.e. push documents to hosting provider.) For this we have Jenkins. 2. De-centralized. This is when the automation is executed on the developers machine. How the user interacts with this system can be an implementation detail. The same scripts could be executed by git hooks, manually, or by the build system. I think the best solution would be to use git-hooks for decentralized automation, as this is there already, and has a well defined and standard interface towards the developer. The main problem with git hooks is, git as a policy leaves hook management as the responsibility of the developer, and there is no built-in way to deploy hooks to the developers machine. (This is due to security considerations.) As a solution to this issue multiple "hook frameworks" have been developed. I suggest investigating these and to build a decentralize automation solution on top of one of them. Ideally the same scripts executed by Jenkins could be executed by the framework too. Some contenders (and the language thy are developed with): * https://github.com/icefox/git-hooks - bash * https://github.com/git-hooks/git-hooks -golang * https://github.com/gnustavo/Git-Hooks - perl Of course there are many more. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Soby Mathew via TF-M Sent: 02 September 2020 15:18 To: Karl Zhang <Karl.Zhang(a)arm.com<mailto:Karl.Zhang@arm.com>>; Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.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] CI Checkpatch Hi, Just my view on this, One of the things that will be helpful is to have is the checkpatch script imported into the project and have a `make checkpatch` build target. This will help to pipe clean check-patch errors from developer side before pushing patch for review. We could also make it a git hook but then I feel it is less convenient than having a regular build target. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Karl Zhang via TF-M Sent: 02 September 2020 01:56 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch Hi Chris, The CI job was trigged from https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/3521, you could find a list of all jobs and status of each job on Gerrit page that triggered by that job, job list example can be found at the end of this email. Another way is from the link you mentioned, that is a pipeline of how CI jobs start from one stage to another stage, if you click on the node of each stage, "Triggered Builds" will list the related job and you can check the details of it. The Open CI for TF-M is under development of Linaro, development plan and status can be found from https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/ , it is not stable at this moment that we are continuously addressing on. There is no latest document for detail introduction of current Open CI yet. Open CI - developer.trustedfirmware.org<https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/> Milestone Deliverables Target Completion Status; M1: Planning, Handover and Deployment SOW and project plan Hand over from OCE to Developer Services developer.trustedfirmware.org For the checkpatch job, it is a part of the static check stage, the error from this stage won't impact the final CI score, we need more investigation before active all static checks. The CI jobs were not able to trigger manually. There is a request to Linaro for the requirement that already working on, hope it can be deployed to the public Open CI soon. Job list example on Gerrit after CI job: Passed: 4, Failed: 18, Not done: 0 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29147/> -1 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29146/> -1 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionProfileS_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29152/> -1 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegression_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29144/> -1 .... checkpatch<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-checkpatch/472/> -1 cppcheck<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-cppcheck/472/> 1 lava_boot<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/> 1 lava_test<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/> 1 psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29157/> -1 psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29154/> -1 tf-m-build<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/479/> -1 tf-m-build-docs<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-docs/647/> 1 Thanks, Karl Zhang ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> on behalf of Christopher Brand via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 12:35 AM To: 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] CI Checkpatch So I see the CI system runs checkpatch, but I don't see any mention of checkpatch under the "docs" directory, or in any of the gerrit reviews, or even on the mailing list. The output in the CI system, as far as I can see, is not particularly useful (I followed the link posted on my review to https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/tf-m-static/detai… but could find anything indicating what issue was actually found). Is there any documentation on how we can run checkptach manually? Or on how to see what the CI version is actually complaining about? Should I just be ignoring the CI checkpatch errors? Thanks, Chris Brand Sr Prin Software Engr, MCD: WIRELESS Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company #320-13700 International Place, Richmond, British Columbia V6V 2X8 Canada www.infineon.com<http://www.infineon.com> www.cypress.com<http://www.cypress.com> 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.

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - September 3

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The agenda for this forum: 1. Hardware fault injection mitigation 2. Secure Partition Addition Demonstration See you, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 26 August 2020 13:52 To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - September 3 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, September 3 at 15:00-16:00 UTC (US 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 Komlev

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi, My two cents on the topic. Sort term Sort term it is possible to clone the ci-scripts repository and to run the check-patch script locally (https://git.trustedfirmware.org/ci/tf-m-ci-scripts.git/tree/run-checkpatch.…) . The script has some in-line documentation. Long term I think this is an automation topic which may have a connection to the build system, but the right place for a solution in not there. When it comes to automation the best is to differentiate two use cases: 1. Centralized. This is where the automation happens on a server, and the main purpose is to keep authentic records about quality, or to drive delivery (i.e. push documents to hosting provider.) For this we have Jenkins. 2. De-centralized. This is when the automation is executed on the developers machine. How the user interacts with this system can be an implementation detail. The same scripts could be executed by git hooks, manually, or by the build system. I think the best solution would be to use git-hooks for decentralized automation, as this is there already, and has a well defined and standard interface towards the developer. The main problem with git hooks is, git as a policy leaves hook management as the responsibility of the developer, and there is no built-in way to deploy hooks to the developers machine. (This is due to security considerations.) As a solution to this issue multiple "hook frameworks" have been developed. I suggest investigating these and to build a decentralize automation solution on top of one of them. Ideally the same scripts executed by Jenkins could be executed by the framework too. Some contenders (and the language thy are developed with): * https://github.com/icefox/git-hooks - bash * https://github.com/git-hooks/git-hooks -golang * https://github.com/gnustavo/Git-Hooks - perl Of course there are many more. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Soby Mathew via TF-M Sent: 02 September 2020 15:18 To: Karl Zhang <Karl.Zhang(a)arm.com>; Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch Hi, Just my view on this, One of the things that will be helpful is to have is the checkpatch script imported into the project and have a `make checkpatch` build target. This will help to pipe clean check-patch errors from developer side before pushing patch for review. We could also make it a git hook but then I feel it is less convenient than having a regular build target. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Karl Zhang via TF-M Sent: 02 September 2020 01:56 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch Hi Chris, The CI job was trigged from https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/3521, you could find a list of all jobs and status of each job on Gerrit page that triggered by that job, job list example can be found at the end of this email. Another way is from the link you mentioned, that is a pipeline of how CI jobs start from one stage to another stage, if you click on the node of each stage, "Triggered Builds" will list the related job and you can check the details of it. The Open CI for TF-M is under development of Linaro, development plan and status can be found from https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/ , it is not stable at this moment that we are continuously addressing on. There is no latest document for detail introduction of current Open CI yet. Open CI - developer.trustedfirmware.org<https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/> Milestone Deliverables Target Completion Status; M1: Planning, Handover and Deployment SOW and project plan Hand over from OCE to Developer Services developer.trustedfirmware.org For the checkpatch job, it is a part of the static check stage, the error from this stage won't impact the final CI score, we need more investigation before active all static checks. The CI jobs were not able to trigger manually. There is a request to Linaro for the requirement that already working on, hope it can be deployed to the public Open CI soon. Job list example on Gerrit after CI job: Passed: 4, Failed: 18, Not done: 0 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29147/> -1 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29146/> -1 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionProfileS_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29152/> -1 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegression_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29144/> -1 .... checkpatch<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-checkpatch/472/> -1 cppcheck<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-cppcheck/472/> 1 lava_boot<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/> 1 lava_test<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/> 1 psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29157/> -1 psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29154/> -1 tf-m-build<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/479/> -1 tf-m-build-docs<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-docs/647/> 1 Thanks, Karl Zhang ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> on behalf of Christopher Brand via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 12:35 AM To: 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] CI Checkpatch So I see the CI system runs checkpatch, but I don't see any mention of checkpatch under the "docs" directory, or in any of the gerrit reviews, or even on the mailing list. The output in the CI system, as far as I can see, is not particularly useful (I followed the link posted on my review to https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/tf-m-static/detai… but could find anything indicating what issue was actually found). Is there any documentation on how we can run checkptach manually? Or on how to see what the CI version is actually complaining about? Should I just be ignoring the CI checkpatch errors? Thanks, Chris Brand Sr Prin Software Engr, MCD: WIRELESS Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company #320-13700 International Place, Richmond, British Columbia V6V 2X8 Canada www.infineon.com<http://www.infineon.com> www.cypress.com<http://www.cypress.com> 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.

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M

by Soby Mathew

Hi Robert, The current architecture abstraction depends on the some CMSIS standard macros (like __FPU_USED) to be defined and if there are vendor tools which can generate the same system file, as long as they are using the standard macros, the architecture abstraction should work alright if the generated file can be included. As Ken says, this makes architecture initialization uniform across platforms and provides the right settings to be applied for security. It also reduces the platform porting effort for new platforms. Hence the move in such a direction. If we allow a mechanism to allow the platform provided system file to be used rather than the default system file, will that suffice your requirement ? Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: 02 September 2020 11:11 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M Hi Robert, Thanks for the comment, just want to double check if the guidelines for vendors who providing platform sources to a secure software covers the recommendations here: https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-m/2020-June/001007.html As far as we can see not all existing platforms set the registers required in the above recommendation (In Jamie's second patch), so we are trying to provide an architecture-abstraction. Meanwhile, we would notify the platform owner checking the platform-specific setting. After all platform vendor confirmed the setting of FPU we can leave this back to platform setting as you suggested - but secure firmware core logic still needs to check if platform set the FPU setting correctly. @Soby @Jamie, please update if I missed something. BR /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Robert Rostohar via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 5:30 PM To: Jamie Fox <Jamie.Fox(a)arm.com<mailto:Jamie.Fox@arm.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] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M Hi Jamie, I have concerns with moving FPU configuration from platform to architecture-abstraction layer. FPU configuration is typically configured within system configuration files that are standardized in CMSIS and provided by device vendors. Some vendors provide also tools that auto-generate the system file based on user configuration (ex: STM32CubeMX). Therefore it would be better to leave the FPU configuration to the platform rather than moving it into architecture-abstraction. Best regards, Robert From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Jamie Fox via TF-M Sent: Friday 28 August 2020 19:53 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] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M Hi all, There is a change open for review that adds configuration of FPU-related registers to the architecture-abstraction layer in TF-M, and removes this same configuration from platform support files. The reasoning for this is that these registers are defined by the Arm architecture, so FPU config can be unified for all platforms with the same architecture. For Armv8-M, this also includes configuration to ensure that information is not leaked in FPU registers to NSPE when the SPE uses the FPU, and to permit the NSPE to access the FPU. By default, TF-M will still be built without the FPU used in the SPE. You can review the changes at: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5405 Arch: Add function to configure coprocessors https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5406 Platform: Remove platform-specific FPU config It would be especially helpful if platform owners could check that they are happy with FPU config being moved out of the platform support files. Kind regards, Jamie

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch

by Soby Mathew

Hi, Just my view on this, One of the things that will be helpful is to have is the checkpatch script imported into the project and have a `make checkpatch` build target. This will help to pipe clean check-patch errors from developer side before pushing patch for review. We could also make it a git hook but then I feel it is less convenient than having a regular build target. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Karl Zhang via TF-M Sent: 02 September 2020 01:56 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch Hi Chris, The CI job was trigged from https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/3521, you could find a list of all jobs and status of each job on Gerrit page that triggered by that job, job list example can be found at the end of this email. Another way is from the link you mentioned, that is a pipeline of how CI jobs start from one stage to another stage, if you click on the node of each stage, "Triggered Builds" will list the related job and you can check the details of it. The Open CI for TF-M is under development of Linaro, development plan and status can be found from https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/ , it is not stable at this moment that we are continuously addressing on. There is no latest document for detail introduction of current Open CI yet. Open CI - developer.trustedfirmware.org<https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/> Milestone Deliverables Target Completion Status; M1: Planning, Handover and Deployment SOW and project plan Hand over from OCE to Developer Services developer.trustedfirmware.org For the checkpatch job, it is a part of the static check stage, the error from this stage won't impact the final CI score, we need more investigation before active all static checks. The CI jobs were not able to trigger manually. There is a request to Linaro for the requirement that already working on, hope it can be deployed to the public Open CI soon. Job list example on Gerrit after CI job: Passed: 4, Failed: 18, Not done: 0 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29147/> -1 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29146/> -1 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionProfileS_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29152/> -1 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegression_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29144/> -1 .... checkpatch<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-checkpatch/472/> -1 cppcheck<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-cppcheck/472/> 1 lava_boot<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/> 1 lava_test<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/> 1 psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29157/> -1 psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29154/> -1 tf-m-build<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/479/> -1 tf-m-build-docs<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-docs/647/> 1 Thanks, Karl Zhang ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> on behalf of Christopher Brand via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 12:35 AM To: 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] CI Checkpatch So I see the CI system runs checkpatch, but I don't see any mention of checkpatch under the "docs" directory, or in any of the gerrit reviews, or even on the mailing list. The output in the CI system, as far as I can see, is not particularly useful (I followed the link posted on my review to https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/tf-m-static/detai… but could find anything indicating what issue was actually found). Is there any documentation on how we can run checkptach manually? Or on how to see what the CI version is actually complaining about? Should I just be ignoring the CI checkpatch errors? Thanks, Chris Brand Sr Prin Software Engr, MCD: WIRELESS Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company #320-13700 International Place, Richmond, British Columbia V6V 2X8 Canada www.infineon.com<http://www.infineon.com> www.cypress.com<http://www.cypress.com> 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.

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] psa_key_id_t type mismatch --- HardFault

by David Hu

Hi Alamy, In my very own opinion, `psk_key_id_t` defined as structure seems to be Mbed Crypto/MbedTLS own definition and should be transparent to applications calling `psa_open_key()`, as described in https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/v2.23.0/include/psa/crypto_platform…. TF-M provides standard PSA APIs and therefore the `psa_key_id_t` in `psa_open_key()` is `uint32_t` as defined in PSA Cryptography API v1 Beta 3. The `uint32_t` `psa_key_id_t` is defined in `interface/include/psa/crypto_types.h` and included by TF-M Crypto interface files. Then when TF-M Crypto service invokes Mbed Crypto/MbedTLS APIs to fulfill the `psa_open_key()`, it includes Mbed Crypto/MbedTLS specific header file, in which `psa_key_id_t` is defined as a structure to support multiple client. For example, `crypto_key.c` constructs a `psa_key_id_t` structure and pass it to Mbed Crypto/MbedTLS `psa_open_key()` implementation. (https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/secure_fw/…) It requires @Jamie Fox<mailto:Jamie.Fox@arm.com> and @Soby Mathew<mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com> help to provide a comprehensive answer. 😉 Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Alamy Liu via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:23 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] psa_key_id_t type mismatch --- HardFault Sorry all, this is a FALSE alarm. Although some codes still include the local header file (uint32_t), none of them use psa_key_id_t at all. Maybe the code should be more clean, but there is no run-time problem! Sorry if it causes problems, Alamy On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 8:38 AM Alamy Liu <alamy.liu(a)gmail.com<mailto:alamy.liu@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all, While I was working on the PSoC64 platform, I hit the psa_key_id_t type mismatch problem. The patch - 98ab441e096f enables MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_KEY_FILE_ID_ENCODES_OWNER Which in terms to use the psa_key_id_t structure (psa_key_file_id_t) in <mbed-crypto/mbedtls>/include/psa/crypto_platform.h Interestingly, psa_key_id_t is also defined in <tf-m>/interface/include/psa/crypto_types.h, as a uint32_t. So, I do the following testing I could compile the master HEAD no problem 66ee5c8861 (HEAD, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Tools: update iat-verifier README and samples I assume the psa_key_id_t should be a structure (from mbed-crypto/mbedtls), I applied the patch below --- a/interface/include/psa/crypto_types.h +++ b/interface/include/psa/crypto_types.h @@ -211,6 +211,8 @@ typedef uint8_t psa_key_persistence_t; */ typedef uint32_t psa_key_location_t; +#if !defined(MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_KEY_FILE_ID_ENCODES_OWNER) +#error Should not compile this /** Encoding of identifiers of persistent keys. * * - Applications may freely choose key identifiers in the range @@ -222,6 +224,7 @@ typedef uint32_t psa_key_location_t; */ typedef uint32_t psa_key_id_t; #define PSA_KEY_ID_INIT 0 +#endif Then, I notice that there are still many files that use uint32_t psa_key_id_t in the TF-M source tree. a) It's good (lucky?) that TF-M seems to cut it cleanly so it doesn't run into problems (well, it happens on PSoC64, or I won't notice it). b) It's bad that psa_key_id_t in TF-M has two different types. I'm not going to argue what's correct/wrong. Maybe this kind of coding could be a feature in the future. I just go with it. But I found no information to define the boundary of the two types under the <tf-m>/docs/ directory. I would like to know where the boundary is, in TF-M. In other words, Which part of the code should use the structure definition from mbedtls/mbed-crypto; which part of the code should use uint32_t ? In my work, the problem happens when it passes psa_key_id_t as a parameter, the parent & child functions see it differently (HardFault, in my case, memory violation to other parameters). e.g.: func_a.c (structure), func_b.c (uint32_t). func_b.h ---- the type changes when it's included by func_a.c and/or func_b.c Regards, Alamy

5 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Simpler integration into other projects

by Rønningstad, Øyvind

Hi list I have a proposal to make it easier to integrate TF-M into other existing projects, e.g. RTOSes such as Zephyr. I'm using Zephyr as an example, but I mean that it should apply to any external project that wants to integrate TF-M. I'm assuming the project wants to use the secure FW as is, so no change is needed there. However, in the NS FW we want to integrate the NS callable (PSA) API into native Zephyr applications, but the NS ("app") part of TF-M has some OS dependencies that interfere with this. My proposal is that the TF-M build system creates OS-independent NS libs that can be linked directly into the native Zephyr app. Ideally, the Zephyr build system should need to only do the following: - Call TF-M build system. - Retrieve S binaries (and optionally mcuboot binary). - Link NS lib(s) into project app. - Add include directories to NS callable API. Additionally, the RTOS will likely need to make an OS wrapper to support the OS functions needed. Please tell me your thoughts. I'm not an expert in Cmake and libs, so please also tell me if the above is infeasible in any way. I think making such integrations as simple as possible will be very beneficial, not just when doing the initial integration, but continuously, since changes in TF-M will eventually require tweaks in the integration. Best regards, Øyvind Rønningstad

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M

by Ken Liu

Hi Robert, Thanks for the comment, just want to double check if the guidelines for vendors who providing platform sources to a secure software covers the recommendations here: https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-m/2020-June/001007.html As far as we can see not all existing platforms set the registers required in the above recommendation (In Jamie's second patch), so we are trying to provide an architecture-abstraction. Meanwhile, we would notify the platform owner checking the platform-specific setting. After all platform vendor confirmed the setting of FPU we can leave this back to platform setting as you suggested - but secure firmware core logic still needs to check if platform set the FPU setting correctly. @Soby @Jamie, please update if I missed something. BR /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Robert Rostohar via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 5:30 PM To: Jamie Fox <Jamie.Fox(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M Hi Jamie, I have concerns with moving FPU configuration from platform to architecture-abstraction layer. FPU configuration is typically configured within system configuration files that are standardized in CMSIS and provided by device vendors. Some vendors provide also tools that auto-generate the system file based on user configuration (ex: STM32CubeMX). Therefore it would be better to leave the FPU configuration to the platform rather than moving it into architecture-abstraction. Best regards, Robert From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Jamie Fox via TF-M Sent: Friday 28 August 2020 19:53 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] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M Hi all, There is a change open for review that adds configuration of FPU-related registers to the architecture-abstraction layer in TF-M, and removes this same configuration from platform support files. The reasoning for this is that these registers are defined by the Arm architecture, so FPU config can be unified for all platforms with the same architecture. For Armv8-M, this also includes configuration to ensure that information is not leaked in FPU registers to NSPE when the SPE uses the FPU, and to permit the NSPE to access the FPU. By default, TF-M will still be built without the FPU used in the SPE. You can review the changes at: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5405 Arch: Add function to configure coprocessors https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5406 Platform: Remove platform-specific FPU config It would be especially helpful if platform owners could check that they are happy with FPU config being moved out of the platform support files. Kind regards, Jamie

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M

by Robert Rostohar

Hi Jamie, I have concerns with moving FPU configuration from platform to architecture-abstraction layer. FPU configuration is typically configured within system configuration files that are standardized in CMSIS and provided by device vendors. Some vendors provide also tools that auto-generate the system file based on user configuration (ex: STM32CubeMX). Therefore it would be better to leave the FPU configuration to the platform rather than moving it into architecture-abstraction. Best regards, Robert From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Jamie Fox via TF-M Sent: Friday 28 August 2020 19:53 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M Hi all, There is a change open for review that adds configuration of FPU-related registers to the architecture-abstraction layer in TF-M, and removes this same configuration from platform support files. The reasoning for this is that these registers are defined by the Arm architecture, so FPU config can be unified for all platforms with the same architecture. For Armv8-M, this also includes configuration to ensure that information is not leaked in FPU registers to NSPE when the SPE uses the FPU, and to permit the NSPE to access the FPU. By default, TF-M will still be built without the FPU used in the SPE. You can review the changes at: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5405 Arch: Add function to configure coprocessors https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5406 Platform: Remove platform-specific FPU config It would be especially helpful if platform owners could check that they are happy with FPU config being moved out of the platform support files. Kind regards, Jamie

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch

by Karl Zhang

Hi Chris, The CI job was trigged from https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/3521, you could find a list of all jobs and status of each job on Gerrit page that triggered by that job, job list example can be found at the end of this email. Another way is from the link you mentioned, that is a pipeline of how CI jobs start from one stage to another stage, if you click on the node of each stage, "Triggered Builds" will list the related job and you can check the details of it. The Open CI for TF-M is under development of Linaro, development plan and status can be found from https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/ , it is not stable at this moment that we are continuously addressing on. There is no latest document for detail introduction of current Open CI yet. Open CI - developer.trustedfirmware.org<https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/> Milestone Deliverables Target Completion Status; M1: Planning, Handover and Deployment SOW and project plan Hand over from OCE to Developer Services developer.trustedfirmware.org For the checkpatch job, it is a part of the static check stage, the error from this stage won't impact the final CI score, we need more investigation before active all static checks. The CI jobs were not able to trigger manually. There is a request to Linaro for the requirement that already working on, hope it can be deployed to the public Open CI soon. Job list example on Gerrit after CI job: Passed: 4, Failed: 18, Not done: 0 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29147/> -1 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29146/> -1 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionProfileS_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29152/> -1 AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegression_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29144/> -1 .... checkpatch<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-checkpatch/472/> -1 cppcheck<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-cppcheck/472/> 1 lava_boot<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/> 1 lava_test<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/> 1 psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29157/> -1 psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29154/> -1 tf-m-build<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/479/> -1 tf-m-build-docs<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-docs/647/> 1 Thanks, Karl Zhang ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Christopher Brand via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 12:35 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch So I see the CI system runs checkpatch, but I don’t see any mention of checkpatch under the “docs” directory, or in any of the gerrit reviews, or even on the mailing list. The output in the CI system, as far as I can see, is not particularly useful (I followed the link posted on my review to https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/tf-m-static/detai… but could find anything indicating what issue was actually found). Is there any documentation on how we can run checkptach manually? Or on how to see what the CI version is actually complaining about? Should I just be ignoring the CI checkpatch errors? Thanks, Chris Brand Sr Prin Software Engr, MCD: WIRELESS Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company #320-13700 International Place, Richmond, British Columbia V6V 2X8 Canada www.infineon.com<http://www.infineon.com> www.cypress.com<http://www.cypress.com> 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.

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

[RFC] The code review guideline

by Ken Liu

Hi, We are creating one document to describe the code review guidelines: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5372 The goal of this document is to introduce the source management level concepts to be followed while reviewing a code – which try to simplify the contribution (but burdens the reviewers? 😉). Difference to the `coding style`: * It focuses more on the source placement, interface definition and including, etc. As this document is keeping evolving in a period, the plan is we merge a simple version as start and adding more contents by new patches, so please give enough comments if you have, and don’t forget the concept: we want to make things rational and simple. Thanks. /Ken

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

psa_key_id_t type mismatch --- HardFault

by Alamy Liu

Dear all, While I was working on the PSoC64 platform, I hit the *psa_key_id_t* type mismatch problem. The patch - *98ab441e096f *enables *MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_KEY_FILE_ID_ENCODES_OWNER* Which in terms to use the *psa_key_id_t* *structure* (psa_key_file_id_t) in <mbed-crypto/mbedtls>/include/psa/*crypto_platform.h* Interestingly, psa_key_id_t is also defined in <tf-m>/interface/include/psa/ *crypto_types.h*, as a uint32_t. So, I do the following testing I could compile the master HEAD no problem *66ee5c8861* (HEAD, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Tools: update iat-verifier README and samples I assume the psa_key_id_t should be a *structure* (from mbed-crypto/mbedtls), I applied the patch below --- a/interface/include/psa/crypto_types.h +++ b/interface/include/psa/crypto_types.h @@ -211,6 +211,8 @@ typedef uint8_t psa_key_persistence_t; */ typedef uint32_t psa_key_location_t;+#if !defined(MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_KEY_FILE_ID_ENCODES_OWNER)+#error Should not compile this /** Encoding of identifiers of persistent keys. * * - Applications may freely choose key identifiers in the range @@ -222,6 +224,7 @@ typedef uint32_t psa_key_location_t; */ typedef uint32_t psa_key_id_t; #define PSA_KEY_ID_INIT 0+#endif Then, I notice that there are still many files that use *uint32_t* psa_key_id_t in the TF-M source tree. a) It's good (lucky?) that TF-M seems to cut it cleanly so it doesn't run into problems (well, it happens on PSoC64, or I won't notice it). b) It's bad that psa_key_id_t in TF-M has two different types. I'm not going to argue what's correct/wrong. Maybe this kind of coding could be a feature in the future. I just go with it. But I found no information to define the boundary of the two types under the <tf-m>/docs/ directory. I would like to know where the boundary is, in TF-M. In other words, *Which part of the code should use the structure definition from mbedtls/mbed-crypto; which part of the code should use uint32_t ?* In my work, the problem happens when it passes psa_key_id_t as a parameter, the parent & child functions see it differently (HardFault, in my case, memory violation to other parameters). e.g.: func_a.c (structure), func_b.c (uint32_t). func_b.h ---- the type changes when it's included by func_a.c and/or func_b.c Regards, Alamy

5 years, 3 months

1
1
0 0

CI Checkpatch

by Christopher Brand

So I see the CI system runs checkpatch, but I don't see any mention of checkpatch under the "docs" directory, or in any of the gerrit reviews, or even on the mailing list. The output in the CI system, as far as I can see, is not particularly useful (I followed the link posted on my review to https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/tf-m-static/detai… but could find anything indicating what issue was actually found). Is there any documentation on how we can run checkptach manually? Or on how to see what the CI version is actually complaining about? Should I just be ignoring the CI checkpatch errors? Thanks, Chris Brand Sr Prin Software Engr, MCD: WIRELESS Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company #320-13700 International Place, Richmond, British Columbia V6V 2X8 Canada www.infineon.com<http://www.infineon.com> www.cypress.com<http://www.cypress.com> 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.

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M

by Jamie Fox

Hi all, There is a change open for review that adds configuration of FPU-related registers to the architecture-abstraction layer in TF-M, and removes this same configuration from platform support files. The reasoning for this is that these registers are defined by the Arm architecture, so FPU config can be unified for all platforms with the same architecture. For Armv8-M, this also includes configuration to ensure that information is not leaked in FPU registers to NSPE when the SPE uses the FPU, and to permit the NSPE to access the FPU. By default, TF-M will still be built without the FPU used in the SPE. You can review the changes at: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5405 Arch: Add function to configure coprocessors https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5406 Platform: Remove platform-specific FPU config It would be especially helpful if platform owners could check that they are happy with FPU config being moved out of the platform support files. Kind regards, Jamie

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

ST platforms building broken

by Kevin Peng

Hi Michel, Some of the configurations on ST platform building is broken. Please see the details in the following ticket: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T808 Would you please have a look. Thanks. Best Regards, Kevin

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

TF-M Technical Forum call - September 3

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, September 3 at 15:00-16:00 UTC (US 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 Komlev

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] New build system with IAR

by David Hu

Hi Thomas, Sorry if I misunderstand your problem. Does it mean that diverse compilers require different core config flags? Best regards, Hu Ziji ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 7:39 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] New build system with IAR I've started looking at the new build system, and it looks like a nice improvement. I have a problem, that likely has a simple solution, although I'm not sure which. I've looked at the AN521 target, and the preload.cmake file is included very early from the root CMakeLists.txt The first line of preload.cmake is: --- set(CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR cortex-m33+nodsp) --- For IAR that line should be: --- set(CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR Cortex-M33.no_dsp) --- I need to discriminate between the toolchains already there, but I haven't figured out what the best way would be to do that. Not much is setup at this moment in the run. Ideas? 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>

5 years, 3 months

2
2
0 0

Re: [TF-M] New build system with IAR

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi, CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR identifies the CPU the build targets. If this string is passed to the compiler as a command line flag, that seems to be an error to me. Also I have the feeling that this value should be more hardware specific. A Cortex-M33 CPU has many configuration options to be set when it is put into a system, and different set of options may need different compiler switches. All this complexity might not be needed in the build-system and it could be better to hide it. I suggest naming the CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR after the "chip" (i.e. AN521). The compiler specific files can map this name to the appropriate set of compiler options, and the compiler will set the "feature test macros" described in [1]. Source code can use these macros to configure itself properly. In the build system only features having an effect on CMake files shall be visible. (I.e. if a feature needs a different file to be compiled in.) [1] https://developer.arm.com/documentation/101028/0011/Feature-test-macros?lan… /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M Sent: 25 August 2020 15:56 To: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] New build system with IAR Hi David, Apparently yes. Here are the valid M33 choices for IAR: --- thomasto@ubuntu-20:~/tf-m1/trusted-firmware-m$ iccarm --cpu list|grep -i m33 Cortex-M33 Cortex-M33.no_dsp Cortex-M33.fp Cortex-M33.fp.no_dsp Cortex-M33.no_se Cortex-M33.no_dsp.no_se Cortex-M33.fp.no_se Cortex-M33.fp.no_dsp.no_se --- Cheers, Thomas Den 2020-08-25 kl. 15:49, skrev David Hu: Hi Thomas, Sorry if I misunderstand your problem. Does it mean that diverse compilers require different core config flags? Best regards, Hu Ziji ________________________________ 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 <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org><mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 7:39 PM To: 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] New build system with IAR I've started looking at the new build system, and it looks like a nice improvement. I have a problem, that likely has a simple solution, although I'm not sure which. I've looked at the AN521 target, and the preload.cmake file is included very early from the root CMakeLists.txt The first line of preload.cmake is: --- set(CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR cortex-m33+nodsp) --- For IAR that line should be: --- set(CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR Cortex-M33.no_dsp) --- I need to discriminate between the toolchains already there, but I haven't figured out what the best way would be to do that. Not much is setup at this moment in the run. Ideas? 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> -- 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>

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Patch to upgrade crypto service to use latest mbedTLS tag (v2.23.0)

by Soby Mathew

Just an update to this, I have merged the patch which upgrades to the latest mbedTLS tag. The PSA Arch initial attestation test suite fails to build after this merge due to width change of `ecc_curve_t` type. The issue is reported here in PSA Arch test github project : https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/pull/232 The patch for changing the ITS_MAX_ASSET_SIZE is still outstanding and I hope to merge it after a week. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Soby Mathew via TF-M Sent: 11 August 2020 16:24 To: TF-M mailing list <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] Patch to upgrade crypto service to use latest mbedTLS tag (v2.23.0) Hi Everyone The following patch updates the crypto service in TF-M to use the latest mbedTLS tag v2.23.0. All reviews for the same will be much appreciated. https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5252/1 With this update, additional PSA APIs psa_hash_compute() and psa_hash_compare() are now supported. There is also another patch for platforms to update the ITS_MAX_ASSET_SIZE when testing with PSA Crypto API compliance test as one of the tests require a larger size: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5253/1 . Could the platform owners review the same and let me know whether the size changes are OK ? With the above patches, the API compliance remains the same as v1.0 Beta 3 and the PSA Crypto compliance test suite gives the below results (as tested on AN521) : ************ Crypto Suite Report ********** TOTAL TESTS : 61 TOTAL PASSED : 42 TOTAL SIM ERROR : 0 TOTAL FAILED : 17 TOTAL SKIPPED : 2 ****************************************** Best Regards Soby Mathes

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform

by Soby Mathew

Thanks Andrew for the update. Just to confirm that AN521 is not affected. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Andrew Murray via TF-M Sent: 20 August 2020 08:04 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform Hi Thomas :) Thanks for that note about the AN521. I've just checked and I was mistaken - it is in fact the AN521 that I am using (rather than the AN539). I therefore have no objection to the deprecation. Sorry about wasting your time :( Andrew ;) -- Andrew Murray indie Semiconductor |Technical Director | MCU Architectures & Security ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Thomas Törnblom" <thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com<mailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com>> To: <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:51:34 +0200 Subject: Re: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform AN521 is also mps2+/m33.

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform

by Andrew Murray

Hi Thomas :) Thanks for that note about the AN521. I've just checked and I was mistaken - it is in fact the AN521 that I am using (rather than the AN539). *I therefore have no objection to the deprecation*. Sorry about wasting your time :( Andrew ;) *--* *Andrew Murray* *indie Semiconductor |Technical Director | MCU Architectures & Security* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Thomas Törnblom" <thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com> To: <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:51:34 +0200 Subject: Re: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform AN521 is also mps2+/m33.

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

-DBL2=False causes duplicates in ASM_FLAGS in makefiles

by Thomas Törnblom

For some reason that I've not been able to track down, using -DBL2=False on the cmake command line causes ASM_FLAGS to have duplicated debug flags and defines. It does not happen to C_FLAGS and it doesn't happen with -DBL2=True. I've worked around the issue in https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5365, but a cleaner solution would be to avoid this in the first place. I would appreciate if someone with more cmake experience could have a go at this. It causes build failures with IAR, and ARMCLANG and GNUARM doesn't care about the duplicates. 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>

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform

by Thomas Törnblom

AN521 is also mps2+/m33. Den 2020-08-20 kl. 08:48, skrev Andrew Murray via TF-M: > Hi Soby ;) > > I'm currently using an MPS2+ board with the AN539 system to experiment > with TF-M code for a new M33-based, IC design. Does "deprecating the > AN539 platform" effectively mean deprecating TF-M support for the > MPS2+ FPGA platform entirely? In other words: is AN539 the only > example subsystem for the MPS2+ board that supports the M33 and TF-M? > If it is, then I'd like to object (for what that's worth!) > > (Feel free to try to persuade me of the merits of an alternative > prototyping platform.) > > Andrew ;) > > /--/ > > /Andrew Murray/ > > /indie Semiconductor |Technical Director | MCU Architectures & Security/ > > // > > > > ... > From: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com <mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com>> > To: TF-M mailing list <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > <mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:11:36 +0000 > Subject: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform > > Hi Everyone, > > As mentioned in > https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/docs/contr…, > we would like to propose the deprecation of AN539 MPS2 platform and > remove the same from TF-M master after next release. As per the > process, this proposal will be open for discussion for a period of 4 > weeks and if there are no major objections, the platform will be > marked as deprecated. > > Thanks & Regards > > Soby Mathew > > -- *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>

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform

by Andrew Murray

Hi Soby ;) I'm currently using an MPS2+ board with the AN539 system to experiment with TF-M code for a new M33-based, IC design. Does "deprecating the AN539 platform" effectively mean deprecating TF-M support for the MPS2+ FPGA platform entirely? In other words: is AN539 the only example subsystem for the MPS2+ board that supports the M33 and TF-M? If it is, then I'd like to object (for what that's worth!) (Feel free to try to persuade me of the merits of an alternative prototyping platform.) Andrew ;) *--* *Andrew Murray* *indie Semiconductor |Technical Director | MCU Architectures & Security* ... From: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com> To: TF-M mailing list <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: Bcc: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:11:36 +0000 Subject: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform Hi Everyone, As mentioned in https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/docs/contr…, we would like to propose the deprecation of AN539 MPS2 platform and remove the same from TF-M master after next release. As per the process, this proposal will be open for discussion for a period of 4 weeks and if there are no major objections, the platform will be marked as deprecated. Thanks & Regards Soby Mathew

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - August 20

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The agenda is empty since no topics were proposed. I will start the session anyway for ad-hoc discussions or Q&A, but feel free to treat it as cancelled and enjoy your vacation season. The best, Anton Komlev From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 12 August 2020 13:56 To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - August 20 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, August 20 at 6:00-07:00 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 Komlev

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Deprecate AN539 platform

by Soby Mathew

Hi Everyone, As mentioned in https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/docs/contr…, we would like to propose the deprecation of AN539 MPS2 platform and remove the same from TF-M master after next release. As per the process, this proposal will be open for discussion for a period of 4 weeks and if there are no major objections, the platform will be marked as deprecated. Thanks & Regards Soby Mathew

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Detailed build logfiles

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi, Please see the file “pipeline.log” on the artifacts tab, or based on the job name and build number (tf-m-static; 428), find the job on the Jenkins main page (https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/). Then check the console output using the menus related to the build number (https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/view/TF-M/job/tf-m-static/428/console). You can find the triggered sub-jobs the same way (in you case tf-m-build-and-test #434; https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/view/TF-M/job/tf-m-build-and-test/434/console). At a quick glance some lava errors seem to be the root cause: Calling: 'nice' 'docker' 'pull' 'REPLACE_DOCKER_PREFIX/lava-fvp-mps2' >> invalid reference format: repository name must be lowercase see here: https://tf.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/9372 Note: I did not made a full investigation, just a quick check. Please dig trough all the sub-jobs to ensure my result is correct. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Malcolm Fernandes via TF-M Sent: 14 August 2020 21:04 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Detailed build logfiles This Gerrit https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5286 has a build failure as per the TFM CI build system. When I click on the link (https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/tf-m-static/detai…), it just has two lines. How do I see a detailed log of that build? Cheers, Mal

5 years, 4 months

2
1
0 0

Detailed build logfiles

by Malcolm Fernandes

This Gerrit https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5286 has a build failure as per the TFM CI build system. When I click on the link ( https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/tf-m-static/detai…), it just has two lines. How do I see a detailed log of that build? Cheers, Mal

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] [RFC]Patches for migrating testing codes from TF-M to tf-m-tests

by Kevin Peng

Hi all The review window has closed as promised. I'd like to merge the changes by 13th, Aug (Tomorrow). To be noted that any changes for TF-M/test or TF-M/app will have to "rebase" to the tf-m-tests repo after the merge. Will let you know when the merge is done. Best Regards, Kevin From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 10:16 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] [RFC]Patches for migrating testing codes from TF-M to tf-m-tests Hi, As have shared on the tech forum yesterday, there is the activity to move the test codes from tf-m to tf-m-tests. Here are the patches for the step 1 - moving the codes without modifications: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22Migration_of_test_code%22+(st… Please help on review. Thanks. The review window would be closed in one week in case of no comments. Best Regards, Kevin

5 years, 4 months

1
1
0 0

TF-M Technical Forum call - August 20

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, August 20 at 6:00-07:00 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 Komlev

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M repository restructure

by Anton Komlev

Hello, This is a kind reminder on TF-M repository change below. The old URL will be alive for the following 3 months before depreciation. Regards, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 14 May 2020 15:32 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M repository restructure Hello, Let me announce the changes in TF-M project repository structure. To allow project grow up in a more organized way the existing codebase will be split on multiple repositories and placed under TF-M folder. This is the similar structure as all other projects have in git.trustedfirmware.org<https://git.trustedfirmware.org>. This weekend TF-M git repository will be moved from https://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git to https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git The original URL will be supported for some time (as a link to the new one) giving time for adjustment. Current plan is to keep the redirection for 6 months but let me know please, if it makes any conflict and another depreciation period is better. Best regards, Anton Komlev

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Patch to upgrade crypto service to use latest mbedTLS tag (v2.23.0)

by Soby Mathew

Hi Everyone The following patch updates the crypto service in TF-M to use the latest mbedTLS tag v2.23.0. All reviews for the same will be much appreciated. https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5252/1 With this update, additional PSA APIs psa_hash_compute() and psa_hash_compare() are now supported. There is also another patch for platforms to update the ITS_MAX_ASSET_SIZE when testing with PSA Crypto API compliance test as one of the tests require a larger size: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5253/1 . Could the platform owners review the same and let me know whether the size changes are OK ? With the above patches, the API compliance remains the same as v1.0 Beta 3 and the PSA Crypto compliance test suite gives the below results (as tested on AN521) : ************ Crypto Suite Report ********** TOTAL TESTS : 61 TOTAL PASSED : 42 TOTAL SIM ERROR : 0 TOTAL FAILED : 17 TOTAL SKIPPED : 2 ****************************************** Best Regards Soby Mathew

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - August 6

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The agenda for this forum: 1. Musca-B1 Secure Enclave solution 2. Platform specific vs common scatter/link scripts 3. Any Other Business See you, Anton Komlev From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Mark Horvath via TF-M Sent: 03 August 2020 12:13 To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - August 6 Hi, I would like to talk a little about the Musca-B1 Secure Enclave solution I plan it to 15 minutes +questions. Best regards, Mark 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: 28 July 2020 19:24 To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <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 - August 6 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, August 6 at 15:00-16:00 UTC (US time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Best regards, Anton Komlev

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Proposal to separate SCT/LD into each platform folder

by Shawn Shan

Hi all, There are many differences in linker scripts between each platform. Using a common_s.sct/ld makes it too complicated. And at the same time, in order to achieve isolation level 3, the position of the sessions in scatter and linker script file needs to be adjusted. The common linker scripts would be more complicated with isolation L3. So I would like to propose to have dedicated linker scripts for platforms with enough differential arrangements. What's your opinion on this? Best regards, Shawn

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Fail pushing, no common ancestry

by Soby Mathew

Hi Thomas >From the log, Your folder seems to indicate trusted-firmware-m and you are trying to push to tf-m-tests. The trusted-firmware-m.git<https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/> and tf-m-tests.git<https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/tf-m-tests.git/> do not have a common ancestor. You might need to create a patch file and then apply to the tests repo manually I think. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M Sent: 03 August 2020 15:43 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Fail pushing, no common ancestry I've tried fixing a minor issue in one of my already pushed changes, but for some reason I get an error. To avoid anything I've done today I tried to push the local repo with no changes at all since I pushed it last, and I'm still getting an issue, and it seems related to tf-m-tests --- PS C:\Users\thomasto\Projects\tf-m1\trusted-firmware-m> git push ssh://review.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/tf-m-tests.git HEAD:refs/for/master Enumerating objects: 24547, done. Counting objects: 100% (24547/24547), done. Delta compression using up to 4 threads Compressing objects: 100% (8849/8849), done. Writing objects: 100% (24547/24547), 12.14 MiB | 1.07 MiB/s, done. Total 24547 (delta 17058), reused 21946 (delta 15111), pack-reused 0 remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (17058/17058) remote: Processing changes: refs: 1, done To ssh://review.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/tf-m-tests.git ! [remote rejected] HEAD -> refs/for/master (no common ancestry) error: failed to push some refs to 'ssh://review.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/tf-m-tests.git' --- What am I missing? 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>

5 years, 4 months

2
1
0 0

Fail pushing, no common ancestry

by Thomas Törnblom

I've tried fixing a minor issue in one of my already pushed changes, but for some reason I get an error. To avoid anything I've done today I tried to push the local repo with no changes at all since I pushed it last, and I'm still getting an issue, and it seems related to tf-m-tests --- PS C:\Users\thomasto\Projects\tf-m1\trusted-firmware-m> git push ssh://review.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/tf-m-tests.git HEAD:refs/for/master Enumerating objects: 24547, done. Counting objects: 100% (24547/24547), done. Delta compression using up to 4 threads Compressing objects: 100% (8849/8849), done. Writing objects: 100% (24547/24547), 12.14 MiB | 1.07 MiB/s, done. Total 24547 (delta 17058), reused 21946 (delta 15111), pack-reused 0 remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (17058/17058) remote: Processing changes: refs: 1, done To ssh://review.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/tf-m-tests.git ! [remote rejected] HEAD -> refs/for/master (no common ancestry) error: failed to push some refs to 'ssh://review.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/tf-m-tests.git' --- What am I missing? 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>

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - August 6

by Mark Horvath

Hi, I would like to talk a little about the Musca-B1 Secure Enclave solution I plan it to 15 minutes +questions. Best regards, Mark From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 28 July 2020 19:24 To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - August 6 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, August 6 at 15:00-16:00 UTC (US time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Best regards, Anton Komlev

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Process for deprecating and removing platforms

by Soby Mathew

Hi Everyone Just a reminder, I plan to merge this proposal by end of this week. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Soby Mathew via TF-M Sent: 16 July 2020 14:00 To: TF-M mailing list <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] Process for deprecating and removing platforms Hi Everyone, The document in tf.org defines the different "Platform Support Life Cycle": https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/project-maintenance-p… Although a platform can be implicitly in deprecated state due to lack of support or maintenance, a process to explicitly declare a platform as deprecated with the intention to remove it in future is needed as well. So I have attempted to define a process as described here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/4962/1/docs/… Comments welcome. Best Regards Soby Mathew

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Call for final review of Profile Medium patches

by David Hu

Hi all, Thanks a lot for the reviews and comments on Profile Medium patches. I'd like to merge those patches by this Thursday if no further critical issue. Please access https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22profile-m-config%22+(status:o… if you are interested to take another look. Thank you. Best regards, Hu Ziji

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

TF-M Technical Forum call - August 6

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, August 6 at 15:00-16:00 UTC (US time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Best regards, Anton Komlev

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Ninja builds broken

by Ken Liu

Looks like some mistake happened in the cmake file which causes trouble under windows. I have created a patch for this: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5100 Could you check if this would help? Thanks. BR /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 12:33 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Ninja builds broken Looks like Ninja builds are now broken for some targets. AN519, AN521, AN539, and possibly others, fails to link tfm_ns.axf with the following error: --- Usage: wrapper.py [OPTIONS] INFILE OUTFILE Try "wrapper.py --help" for help. Error: Got unexpected extra argument (C:/Users/thomasto/Projects/tf-m1/trusted-firmware-m/cmake_build_gcc/tfm_s_signed.bin) ninja: build stopped: subcommand failed. --- 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>

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Ninja builds broken

by Thomas Törnblom

Looks like Ninja builds are now broken for some targets. AN519, AN521, AN539, and possibly others, fails to link tfm_ns.axf with the following error: --- Usage: wrapper.py [OPTIONS] INFILE OUTFILE Try "wrapper.py --help" for help. Error: Got unexpected extra argument (C:/Users/thomasto/Projects/tf-m1/trusted-firmware-m/cmake_build_gcc/tfm_s_signed.bin) ninja: build stopped: subcommand failed. --- 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>

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Invitation: TF-M Tech Forum @ Thu 17 Sep 2020 07:00 - 08:00 (BST) (tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org)

by Bill Fletcher

You have been invited to the following event. Title: TF-M Tech Forum About TF-M Tech forum:This is an open forum for anyone to participate and it is not restricted to Trusted Firmware project members. It will operate under the guidance of the TF TSC.Feel free to forward it to colleagues.Details of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/Tr… Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom Meetinghttps://zoom.us/j/9159704974Meeting ID: 915 970 4974One tap mobile+16465588656,,9159704974# US (New York)+16699009128,,9159704974# US (San Jose)Dial by your location        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)        877 853 5247 US Toll-free        888 788 0099 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 915 970 4974Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad27hc6t7h   When: Thu 17 Sep 2020 07:00 – 08:00 United Kingdom Time Calendar: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Who: * Bill Fletcher- creator * tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Event details: https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NjZuNjVnbmNmZG1qZ24xa… Invitation from Google Calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/ You are receiving this courtesy email at the account tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively, you can sign up for a Google Account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organiser and be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of their own invitation status or to modify your RSVP. Learn more at https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Invitation: TF-M tech forum @ Thu 3 Sep 2020 16:00 - 17:00 (BST) (tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org)

by Bill Fletcher

You have been invited to the following event. Title: TF-M tech forum About TF-M Tech forum:This is an open forum for anyone to participate and it is not restricted to Trusted Firmware project members. It will operate under the guidance of the TF TSC.Feel free to forward it to colleagues.Details of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/Tr… Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom Meetinghttps://zoom.us/j/9159704974Meeting ID: 915 970 4974One tap mobile+16465588656,,9159704974# US (New York)+16699009128,,9159704974# US (San Jose)Dial by your location        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)        877 853 5247 US Toll-free        888 788 0099 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 915 970 4974Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad27hc6t7h   When: Thu 3 Sep 2020 16:00 – 17:00 United Kingdom Time Calendar: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Who: * Bill Fletcher- creator * tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Event details: https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=M2R2cW8ycGhvbGk0bWM0M… Invitation from Google Calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/ You are receiving this courtesy email at the account tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively, you can sign up for a Google Account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organiser and be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of their own invitation status or to modify your RSVP. Learn more at https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Invitation: TF-M Tech Forum @ Thu 20 Aug 2020 07:00 - 08:00 (BST) (tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org)

by Bill Fletcher

You have been invited to the following event. Title: TF-M Tech Forum About TF-M Tech forum:This is an open forum for anyone to participate and it is not restricted to Trusted Firmware project members. It will operate under the guidance of the TF TSC.Feel free to forward it to colleagues.Details of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/Tr… Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom Meetinghttps://zoom.us/j/9159704974Meeting ID: 915 970 4974One tap mobile+16465588656,,9159704974# US (New York)+16699009128,,9159704974# US (San Jose)Dial by your location        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)        877 853 5247 US Toll-free        888 788 0099 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 915 970 4974Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad27hc6t7h   When: Thu 20 Aug 2020 07:00 – 08:00 United Kingdom Time Calendar: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Who: * Bill Fletcher- creator * tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Event details: https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=MmhydThhczM3N3RrNnNmY… Invitation from Google Calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/ You are receiving this courtesy email at the account tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively, you can sign up for a Google Account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organiser and be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of their own invitation status or to modify your RSVP. Learn more at https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Invitation: TF-M Tech forum @ Thu 6 Aug 2020 16:00 - 17:00 (BST) (tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org)

by Bill Fletcher

You have been invited to the following event. Title: TF-M Tech forum About TF-M Tech forum:This is an open forum for anyone to participate and it is not restricted to Trusted Firmware project members. It will operate under the guidance of the TF TSC.Feel free to forward it to colleagues.Details of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/Tr… Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom Meetinghttps://zoom.us/j/9159704974Meeting ID: 915 970 4974One tap mobile+16465588656,,9159704974# US (New York)+16699009128,,9159704974# US (San Jose)Dial by your location        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)        877 853 5247 US Toll-free        888 788 0099 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 915 970 4974Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad27hc6t7h   When: Thu 6 Aug 2020 16:00 – 17:00 United Kingdom Time Calendar: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Who: * Bill Fletcher- creator * tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Event details: https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=MjZua2JubGhybjJlMGswM… Invitation from Google Calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/ You are receiving this courtesy email at the account tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively, you can sign up for a Google Account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organiser and be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of their own invitation status or to modify your RSVP. Learn more at https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

[RFC]Patches for migrating testing codes from TF-M to tf-m-tests

by Kevin Peng

Hi, As have shared on the tech forum yesterday, there is the activity to move the test codes from tf-m to tf-m-tests. Here are the patches for the step 1 - moving the codes without modifications: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22Migration_of_test_code%22+(st… Please help on review. Thanks. The review window would be closed in one week in case of no comments. Best Regards, Kevin

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

TF-M: v1.1 and Ecosystem Enablement Blog

by Shebu Varghese Kuriakose

Hi All, Here is a blog about TF-M v1.1 and recent Ecosystem enablement - https://www.trustedfirmware.org/blog/tfm-v1-1-blog/ Regards, Shebu TF-M Technology Manager

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] New TrustedFirmware.org security incident process is now live

by Anton Komlev

Hi, Let me remind you about the security incident process and open registration for Trusted Stakeholders. Best regards, Anton Komlev From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Dan Handley via TF-M Sent: 30 June 2020 15:13 To: tsc(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; op-tee(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; mbed-tls-announce(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; hafnium(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] New TrustedFirmware.org security incident process is now live Hi all The new TrustedFirmware.org security incident process is now live. This process is described here: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/security_center/repor… Initially the process will be used for the following projects: TF-A, TF-M, OP-TEE and Mbed TLS. The security documentation for each project will be updated soon to reflect this change. If you are part of an organization that believes it should receive security vulnerability information before it is made public then please ask your relevant colleagues to register as Trusted Stakeholders as described here: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/security_center/trust… Note we prefer individuals in each organization to coordinate their registration requests with each other and to provide us with an email alias managed by your organization instead of us managing a long list of individual addresses. Best regards Dan. (on behalf of the TrustedFirmware.org security team)

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - July 23

by Kevin Peng

Hi Anton, I'd like to give a brief introduction on the changes (both happened and proposal) for TF-M testing. The duration would be ~30 minutes. Best Regards, Kevin From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 4:14 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - July 23 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, July 23 at 6:00-07:00 UTC (Asia time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Best regards, Anton Komlev

5 years, 4 months

2
1
0 0

New build system WIP

by Raef Coles

Hi all The new buildsystem (work in progress) is now available at https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5039. Comment would be very much appreciated. There have been some minor interface changes to how the buildsystem is invoked. a sample invocation is: cmake -S .. \ -B . \ -G"Unix Makefiles" \ -DTFM_PLATFORM=musca_s1 \ -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=release -DBL2=ON \ -DNS=ON \ -DTFM_PSA_API=ON \ -DTEST_NS=ON -DTEST_S=ON \ -DTFM_ISOLATION_LVL=2 More specifically cmake -S [Source_dir (often ..)] \ -B [build_dir (often .)] \ -G ["Unix Makefiles" OR Ninja] \ -DTFM_PLATFORM=[musca_b1 OR musca_s1 OR mps2/an521 OR cypress/psoc64 ETC...] -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=[build_dir/toolchain_GNUARM.cmake OR build_dir/toolchain_ARMCLANG.cmake] -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=[release OR debug OR minsizerel OR relwithdbginfo] -DBL2=[OFF OR ON] -DNS=[OFF OR ON] -DTFM_PSA_API=[OFF OR ON] -DTEST_NS=[OFF OR ON] -DTEST_S=[OFF OR ON] -DTFM_ISOLATION_LVL=[1 OR 2] Note that this interface is not set in stone and may change before these patches are merged. The new buildsystem is currently missing a few of the platforms, as well as some features. All of these are planned to be added prior to merging. Notable are dualcpu/Cypress PSoC64 which is currently being finalized, documentation building, and image signing for some of the boot modes which is on the TODO list. Note that unlike previous versions, this should work "out the box" with regard to dependencies. The paths for dependencies can be set, but some patches to mbedtls that are in the process of being upstreamed are used. These patches are stored in the lib/ext/mbedcrypto directory and can easily be applied manually. Regards, Raef Coles

5 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

MCUBoot related changes

by Tamas Ban

Hi, Just a heads-up for the coming changes related to MCUBoot. Some of them requires installing new tools in build system others could affect devices on the field (if there is any) after SW upgrade. Short term, within one week: 1. Official imgtool enablement: * The official released version of the image signings script will be used. * Must be installed in the build system. It is a PyPI package: imgtool v1.6 * https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/4564/6 2. Encrypted image support: * This feature already exists in the upstream repo for a while * This change makes possible to turn it on in TF-M build system * https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/4565/6 Long term, but still expected in Q3: 1. Removal of forked MCUBoot from TF-M: * Only upstream MCUBoot will supported * Platform and project related files will be kept: i. shim layer to match MCUBoot HAL's to TF-M's HAL ii. bl2_main.c, example signing keys, keys.c iii. platform code: flash and UART drivers, implementation of boot_hal.h * When building TF-M with upstream MCUboot it is a mixture of files from the two repo + crypto code from mbedcrypto repo. * https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/4953 * The removal of the fork depends on the feature upstream to MCUBoot repo: i. https://github.com/JuulLabs-OSS/mcuboot/pull/739 ii. RAM_LOAD: PR will come a bit later 1. Removal of LEGACY_TFM_TLV_HEADER support * This is a compatibility mode. It was introduced to hide the difference in the definition of the TLV header int he shared data between bootloader and runtime SPE. * If forked removed, then this is not necessary anymore, unless an forked version of MCUBoot wants to cooperate new SPE. * Please check and indicate if you think that this is a valid use case and compatibility mode must be kept! Tamas

5 years, 5 months

1
1
0 0

TF-M/FreeRTOS blog

by Shebu Varghese Kuriakose

Hi All, Here is a blog post about FreeRTOS/TF-M integration - https://freertos.org/2020/07/security-for-arm-cortex-m-devices-with-freerto… Regards, Shebu

5 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

TF-M Technical Forum call - July 23

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, July 23 at 6:00-07:00 UTC (Asia time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Best regards, Anton Komlev

5 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Process for deprecating and removing platforms

by Soby Mathew

Hi Everyone, The document in tf.org defines the different "Platform Support Life Cycle": https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/project-maintenance-p… Although a platform can be implicitly in deprecated state due to lack of support or maintenance, a process to explicitly declare a platform as deprecated with the intention to remove it in future is needed as well. So I have attempted to define a process as described here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/4962/1/docs/… Comments welcome. Best Regards Soby Mathew

5 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Persistent key storage ownership/access

by Andrew Thoelke

Hi, The ITS design requires that all data items are private to its client - it essentially just provides a persistence capability within the same isolation domain. So it is not possible for two distinct clients to access the same stored material, *unless they do this through a common intermediary*. Jamie outlines one approach: PSA Crypto Partition hosts the key store, and delegates the operations to the AES partition. But this fails the concurrency requirement as noted. Another plausible approach is that the AES Partition is a special/trusted client of the PSA Crypto Partition and uses a dedicated service/API to retrieve the AES client's key material. However, this also fails the concurrency objective when the PSA Crypto Partition is busy. Without the IPC model (which allows for nested/interleaved message handling, under service developer control) - the design that would work is to: 1. Create a key store Partition that interfaces with ITS 2. Have the PSA Crypto and AES partitions be trusted clients of the key store (the key store does not allow other client connections) 3. Key management operations go through a PSA Crypto service, which invokes the key store service to store material in ITS 4. AES operations go through a AES service, which invokes the key store service to retrieve key material This model works, but delivering the desired concurrency requires that the framework supports multiple Partitions, and can run one Partition while another is busy/blocked. Note that the key store service is _just_ a proxy to ITS using the key-id + Crypto-client-id supplied by its client. Security depends on the client-ids of the Crypto and AES Partitions being fixed so that the private key store service can strictly enforce which clients can use it. Regards, Andrew From: psa-crypto <psa-crypto-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Jamie Fox via psa-crypto Sent: 10 July 2020 14:22 To: Quach, Brian <brian(a)ti.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; psa-crypto(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [psa-crypto] Persistent key storage ownership/access Hi Brian, It is true that each persistent key has only one owner who can access it, the partition that created it. But note that even if the driver partition could be given permission to access the key, then it wouldn't immediately fix the issue. The driver partition would then need to implement another layer of access control, otherwise partitions would be able to use it as a conduit to access keys that they don't themselves own. I think a more expected flow would look like: 1. NS application calls psa_import_key() to store a key with an ID. Key is stored by ITS with client ID of -1 (DEFAULT_NS_CLIENT_ID). 2. NS application calls an AES crypto function in the PSA Crypto partition and provides the key ID. 3. PSA Crypto partition retrieves the key from ITS for use. Client ID = -1. 4. PSA Crypto partition calls an AES crypto function in the driver partition and provides the key material. But I assume you discarded this approach because it didn't give you the level of concurrency between PSA Crypto and the crypto driver that you wanted. I am adding the psa-crypto mailing list to this, as people on there may have more/better input. Kind regards, Jamie From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Quach, Brian via TF-M Sent: 10 July 2020 06:18 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] Persistent key storage ownership/access Hi, I see that keys can only be accessed/modified by their owning secure partition. File ID used by ITS is 12-bytes. Assuming the Application imports a persistent key and then opens the key, the File ID would be: | 32 -bits | 32 -bits | 32 -bits | ========================================== PSA Crypto SP ID | Key ID | DEFAULT_NS_CLIENT_ID (-1) Then the key handle returned from the psa_open_key() is used for any cryptographic operations. This makes perfect sense to me for PSA API v1.0 beta 3. However, for PSA API v1.0 release where open/close key was removed and only the Key ID will be used, I'm confused on how the key access and File ID would work. Initially, when the app imports the key, the key file would have the same 12-byte file ID as the case above. However, when the application calls a cryptographic function, it now provides the 32-bit key ID instead of the handle. The persistent key is not cached and must be read from the ITS. I had assumed the crypto driver would call psa_export_key() to retrieve the key for use, however, the File ID in this case would be: | 32 -bits | 32 -bits | 32 -bits | ========================================== PSA Crypto SP ID | Key ID | Secure Partition ID of Crypto Driver The file ID would not match what the App imported and the key would not be found. Am I misunderstanding how the key should be accessed for use after it has been imported or how the File ID is generated? Another explanation of the scenario if the above was not clear: 1. NS application calls psa_import_key() to store a key with an ID. Key is stored by ITS with client ID of -1 (DEFAULT_NS_CLIENT_ID). 2. NS application calls an AES crypto function and provides the key ID. 3. AES driver crypto function calls psa_export_key() to retrieve the key from ITS for use. Client ID = AES secure partition. RoT Partition 1: * PSA Crypto (with keystore) RoT Partition 2: - AES driver (placed its own partition so other crypto ops in PSA Crypto partition can run in parallel...multiple HW accelerators) RoT Partition 3: * ITS Regards, Brian Quach SimpleLink MCU Texas Instruments Inc. 12500 TI Blvd, MS F-4000 Dallas, TX 75243 214-479-4076

5 years, 5 months

2
1
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M