- TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

Review request for adding External Trusted Secure Storage service in TF-M

by Edward Yang

Hi everyone, Please help review the following design proposal of adding External Trusted Secure Storage service in TF-M,any comments and suggestions will be appreciated. https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/7295 Best Regards, Poppy Wu Macronix Microelectronics (Suzhou) Co.,Ltd http://www.mxic.com.cn ======================================================== ============================================================================ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Macronix International Co., Ltd. =====================================================================

4 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Deprecation of platform MPS2/SSE-200_AWS

by Marton Berke

Hi Everyone, I would like to propose the deprecation of platform MPS2/SSE-200_AWS because the platform is no longer available to use: https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/ARM-Ltd-DesignStart-FPGA-on-Cloud-Cor… As per the process, this proposal is open for discussion for a period of 4 weeks and if there are no major objections, the platform should be marked as deprecated and removed from TF-M master after next release. Thanks and Best regards, Marton Berke

4 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - November 26

by Karl Zhang

Hi Anton I would have an introduction to TF-M openCI. Thanks Karl ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of David Hu via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 2:10 PM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - November 26 Hi Anton, I’d like to share a proposal to improve dual-cpu mailbox. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 4:59 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - November 26 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, November 26 at 15:00-16:00 GMT (US friendly 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

4 years, 5 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] gcc compiler requirement documentation

by Shawn Shan

Hi Chris, Thanks for point out this. Here is the fix: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/7226 Regards, Shawn From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 2:55 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] gcc compiler requirement documentation Looking at docs/getting_started//tfm_sw_requirement.rst it says that the version requirement for gcc is "GNU Arm compiler v7.3.1+". then it describes where to get that toolchain, but in that section the two versions it suggests are "GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain: 6-2017-q1-update" and "GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain: 7-2018-q2-update". The former is gcc version 6.3.1, which doesn't actually meet the requirements. 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.

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Externally override flash layout and pin configurations (out-of-tree platforms?)

by Ken Liu

Hi, In the ideal case with HAL API, the platform itself can decide which variant's layout to be applied, selected by build system switches or just some header files. Because SPM could get what it needed by HAL API run-time. It can be mostly done inside the platform folder if one platform has the variants management already. Others please give inputs as this is a very useful topic, we can list down the problem we met during integration first. BR /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Rønningstad, Øyvind via TF-M Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 3:47 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: Rasmussen, Torsten <Torsten.Rasmussen(a)nordicsemi.no> Subject: [TF-M] Externally override flash layout and pin configurations (out-of-tree platforms?) Hi all In our work integrating TFM into Zephyr and the nRF Connect SDK, it's apparent that the integration would be a lot smoother if we could specify TFM's flash layout externally. Looking into it a bit, I came up with a draft proposal here: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/pull/18/files We could just modify our own platforms to this and be happy, but I'm wondering if there would be interest in standardizing something. Now, a related problem is: How can we make it easier to add multiple boards based on a single chip. For the Nordic platforms we've already separated the chip-specific code (nRF9160/nRF5340) from the board specific code (DK/PDK), and for the boards, it really boils down to pin configurations. We could allow to specify pins via Cmake instead, to easily allow users to support their production PCBs. But (this was brought up in the above PR) we can also solve both problems by adding support for out-of-tree platforms. For example, allow TFM to be built like so: cmake -DTFM_PLATFORM=../../../../my_custom_board ... This would probably be less work that designing a new interface for overriding flash layouts and pin configurations. What are your thoughts? BR, Øyvind Rønningstad

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Externally override flash layout and pin configurations (out-of-tree platforms?)

by Rønningstad, Øyvind

Hi all In our work integrating TFM into Zephyr and the nRF Connect SDK, it's apparent that the integration would be a lot smoother if we could specify TFM's flash layout externally. Looking into it a bit, I came up with a draft proposal here: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/pull/18/files We could just modify our own platforms to this and be happy, but I'm wondering if there would be interest in standardizing something. Now, a related problem is: How can we make it easier to add multiple boards based on a single chip. For the Nordic platforms we've already separated the chip-specific code (nRF9160/nRF5340) from the board specific code (DK/PDK), and for the boards, it really boils down to pin configurations. We could allow to specify pins via Cmake instead, to easily allow users to support their production PCBs. But (this was brought up in the above PR) we can also solve both problems by adding support for out-of-tree platforms. For example, allow TFM to be built like so: cmake -DTFM_PLATFORM=../../../../my_custom_board ... This would probably be less work that designing a new interface for overriding flash layouts and pin configurations. What are your thoughts? BR, Øyvind Rønningstad

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

gcc compiler requirement documentation

by Christopher Brand

Looking at docs/getting_started//tfm_sw_requirement.rst it says that the version requirement for gcc is "GNU Arm compiler v7.3.1+". then it describes where to get that toolchain, but in that section the two versions it suggests are "GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain: 6-2017-q1-update" and "GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain: 7-2018-q2-update". The former is gcc version 6.3.1, which doesn't actually meet the requirements. 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.

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL description confusing/wrong

by Tamas Ban

Hi Thomas, Here is the fix: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/7196 Actually since the CMake refactor the default value can be overridden from the command line, so it is possible to enable the logging even in Release builds. BR Tamas -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M Sent: 2020. november 25., szerda 8:50 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL description confusing/wrong The description of how to set MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL in tfm_secure_boot.rst appears wrong, or at least unclear. --- - MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL: Can be used to configure the level of logging in MCUBoot. The possible values are the following: - **LOG_LEVEL_OFF** - **LOG_LEVEL_ERROR** - **LOG_LEVEL_WARNING** - **LOG_LEVEL_INFO** - **LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG** The logging in MCUBoot can be disabled and thus the code size can be reduced by setting it to ``LOG_LEVEL_OFF``. Its value depends on the build type. If the build type is ``Debug`` and a value has been provided (e.g. through the command line or the CMake GUI) then that value will be used, otherwise it is ``LOG_LEVEL_INFO`` by default. In case of different kinds of ``Release`` builds its value is set to ``LOG_LEVEL_OFF`` (any other value will be overridden). --- I tried enabling MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG by adding -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG to the cmake command line, but that set the level to -1. I also tried -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=4, which also set it to -1. I then noticed that the default setting in CMakeCache.txt is "MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL:STRING=INFO", so I instead used -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=DEBUG, which worked. I would also like to be able to use logging for Release builds, as this may assist chasing down optimization issues. Thomas -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

TF-M v1.2.0 release

by Anton Komlev

Hello, TF-M project released version v1.2.0, tagged as TF-Mv1.2.0. This release has started using adopted semantic versioning as described in the release_process.rst<https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/docs/contr…> Please take a look into the release notes for the new features and changes. Thanks to everyone who directly and indirectly contributed to this milestone. Anton Komlev TF-M technical lead Arm Ltd.

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL description confusing/wrong

by Thomas Törnblom

The description of how to set MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL in tfm_secure_boot.rst appears wrong, or at least unclear. --- - MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL: Can be used to configure the level of logging in MCUBoot. The possible values are the following: - **LOG_LEVEL_OFF** - **LOG_LEVEL_ERROR** - **LOG_LEVEL_WARNING** - **LOG_LEVEL_INFO** - **LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG** The logging in MCUBoot can be disabled and thus the code size can be reduced by setting it to ``LOG_LEVEL_OFF``. Its value depends on the build type. If the build type is ``Debug`` and a value has been provided (e.g. through the command line or the CMake GUI) then that value will be used, otherwise it is ``LOG_LEVEL_INFO`` by default. In case of different kinds of ``Release`` builds its value is set to ``LOG_LEVEL_OFF`` (any other value will be overridden). --- I tried enabling MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG by adding -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG to the cmake command line, but that set the level to -1. I also tried -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=4, which also set it to -1. I then noticed that the default setting in CMakeCache.txt is "MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL:STRING=INFO", so I instead used -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=DEBUG, which worked. I would also like to be able to use logging for Release builds, as this may assist chasing down optimization issues. Thomas

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - November 26

by David Hu

Hi Anton, I'd like to share a proposal to improve dual-cpu mailbox. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 4:59 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - November 26 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, November 26 at 15:00-16:00 GMT (US friendly 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

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2

by Anton Komlev

Hi, New TF-M Release Candidate 3 is tagged by TF-Mv1.2-RC3 Please update all repositories as it contain all fixes for issues found in RC2. Best regards, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 11 November 2020 15:34 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2 Hi, New TF-M Release Candidate 2 is tagged by TF-Mv1.2-RC2. Please update all repositories as it contain fixes for issues found in RC1. Best regards, Anton 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: 04 November 2020 16:35 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] Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2 Hi, All TF-M repositories are tagged with TF-Mv1.2-RC1 tag, marking the code freeze and beginning of the release candidate testing. 1. tf-m-tools 2. tf-m-tests 3. trusted-firmware-m 4. tf-m-ci-scripts 5. tf-m-job-configs Please use this tag for tests and report all issues found here. The best, Anton 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: 02 November 2020 14:28 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] Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2 Hi All, This is a reminder and heads up that TF-Mv1.2 release is planned for the end of November and TF-M code repository is aimed for freeze on Nov 4th (Wed), tagged by TF-Mv1.2-RC1 for testing. Availability of the tag will be notified via this mailing list. Thanks, Anton

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Technical Forum call - November 26

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, November 26 at 15:00-16:00 GMT (US friendly 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

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning

by Minos Galanakis

Hi, Following up the current discussions on semantic versioning, I have prepared a patch <https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/7075/1> . Feel free to review and comment. Expanded patch link: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/7075/1 Minos ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 16 November 2020 17:32 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi, Well, yes. Not sure what backwards compatibility would mean in a complex application with a configurable set of services and service capabilities. Semantic versioning could work quite well for components (i.e. secure service implementations) though. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 16 November 2020 18:04 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi George, All, Thanks for the thoughts. Can I assume that you suggest to stay with option 1? The semantic versioning was proposed several times and sounds reasonable because it gives a meaning to each version component so downstream projects could rely on it. Yes, a version of a product represents some quality status but in my view that depends on convention. For downstream projects reference, TF-M issues releases periodically so a version represents a stable point in time and occasionally brings new features / fixes. Cheers, 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: 16 November 2020 08:17 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] Semantic versioning Hi, I miss something here. What is being discussed, what is the purpose of changing version numbering? * Is more granularity needed and each or some lesser quality levels should be assigned a version number too? Currently a new version number is assigned if a new SW set reaches “Release” quality level. (Whatever that might be.) * Is there need for expressing backwards compatibility better? * Is the aim to enhance existing version numbers just by making them following a well-defined standard? I have the feeling different people are talking about different sub-topics. I think the most important purpose or having release numbers is to express quality. It could help on version numbers if quality would be defined cleaner. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M Sent: 16 November 2020 09:06 To: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Hu@arm.com>>; David Wang <David.Wang(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Wang@arm.com>>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@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] Semantic versioning I would vote for Option 3, and “.2” - Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag. – This provides the flexibility to have a released version with critical fixes only. If TF-M users want all the changes between the release and the fix they can take the master branch as well. Best Regards, Kevin From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of David Hu via TF-M Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 3:45 PM To: David Wang <David.Wang(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Wang@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems more reasonable to me. Hi David, I think we can leave tag v1.x.0 as it is and create a new tag v1.x.1 for this critical fix on master branch. It can be more easier to distinguish between tags. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of David Wang via TF-M Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 2:53 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] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 is a good. Just to clarify, for example, if v1.x.0 released, and we got a critical fix 2 months later. Then in your proposal, we: * Tag the current master which includes the fixing patch (and may also include some other merged/ongoing features after last release) as v1.x.1, or * Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag (keep it in a new branch) and tag the tip of the v1.x release branch as v1.x.1 Thanks. Regards, David Wang From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Townsend via TF-M Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 3:45 AM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems the most sensible to me for a project like TF-M at this stage. Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 20:19, Anton Komlev via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi, I would like to continue the discussion on TF-M semantic versioning started on the last tech forum. Currently TF-M uses a loosely defined versioning schema with major and minor versions, following TF-A. There are several calls to switch TF-M to semantic versioning. Here is the reminder of the meaning: (https://semver.org/) v1.2.3 : 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner, and 3. PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes. This is a good way to go for a mature project but TF-M will overkill from everyday re-versioning because of new patches. It was discussed on the forum and several options were proposed: 1. Do nothing, reasonably bumping up versions on release time only. 2. Use semantic versioning ignoring changes in PATCH by keeping it 0. So upcoming version could be: v1.2.0, next v1.3.0 and nothing in between. 3. Use option 2 but change PATCH when critical code change delivered within release cadence like a security vulnerability fix to let down-stream project relay on a fixed version. 4. Other ideas? Personally I tend to follow option 3 but looking for the community input. Thanks, Anton. -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

2
1
0 0

Blog for Amazon FreeRTOS Gateway Demo based on TF-M Profile Small

by David Wang

Hi, In Linaro Virtual Connect 20 (LVC20), Shebu and I presented a session "Scalable Security Using Trusted Firmware-M Profiles" (ref[1]). It basically shows an example of using FreeRTOS+TF-M Profile Small on armv8m devices to connect to AWS cloud through a Gateway. The key features demonstrated in the example: * Symmetric cipher based secure connection - TLS PSK * Usage of (symmetric) attestation * Device-Gateway-Cloud secure channel example A blog (https://www.trustedfirmware.org/blog/amazon-freertos-tfm-blog/) is shared in tf.org if you want to know more details of the design. Thanks. Ref: [1] Scalable Security Using Trusted Firmware-M Profiles - https://connect.linaro.org/resources/lvc20/lvc20-213/ Regards, David Wang ARM Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Phone: +86-21-6154 9142 (ext. 59142)

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Generated files location

by Ken Liu

Hi Andrej, Thanks for reporting this. It looks like the dependency on TFM_TEST_PATH matters. We need to define something for managing these generated files. /Ken -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:54 PM To: Raef Coles <Raef.Coles(a)arm.com>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Generated files location Hi, FYI: For Windows (not Liniux) users, the command have to be: ... set TFM_TEST_PATH=../tf-m-tests/test python tools/tfm_parse_manifest_list.py -m tools/tfm_manifest_list.yaml -f tools/tfm_generated_file_list.yaml -o <output> ... Also, all required Python modules have to be installed before (PyYAML, Jinja2) Best regards, Andrej Butok -----Original Message----- From: Raef Coles <Raef.Coles(a)arm.com> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 2:11 PM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com>; Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: Generated files location Hi, As an intermediate step, we've made a modification to the file generation code so that file can be generated without cmake being run. This generation can be run by: ``` python3 tools/tfm_parse_manifest_list.py -m tools/tfm_manifest_list.yaml -f tools/tfm_generated_file_list.yaml -o <output dir> ``` Which will output the files into the specified output directory. if the `-o` flag is not provided then the files will be generated into the TFM source tree. Note that this method still requires knowledge of the location of some dependencies, as this cannot be provided by cmake. When run in standalone mode, these paths are gathered from environment variables, and generation will fail if those variables are not set. Thus: ``` env TFM_TEST_PATH=$(realpath ../tf-m-tests/test) python3 tools/tfm_parse_manifest_list.py -m tools/tfm_manifest_list.yaml -f tools/tfm_generated_file_list.yaml ``` Raef ________________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Andrej Butok via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 20 October 2020 08:39 To: Anton Komlev Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Generated files location Hi Anton If it's not possible to avoid a file generation now, it's good to have pre-generated files for a most typical configuration (l2, IPC etc.). As I mentioned before, ideally to use TFM as a real component/framework without generation of any source code. BUT If you believe, this requirement breaks a TFM concept, just tell us. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:27 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Generated files location Hi Andrej, Essentially, do you mean to move the files back to code tree and synch them with templates manually as it was ? Cheers, Anton From: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com<mailto:andrey.butok@nxp.com>> Sent: 19 October 2020 16:15 To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: RE: Generated files location Hi Anton, Another option: 3. Avoid the mandatory on-the-fly generation. Try to make TFM a component/framework, which is configurable by compile & run time parameters. Thanks, Andrej 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: Monday, October 19, 2020 5:00 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] Generated files location Hi, Some source files in TF-M are templated and generated inside /<build_dir>/generated/ on the fly as a part of build process. This guaranty consistency between templates and generated but might make a trouble for IDE, where not all source files exist at the first run. I see 2 options for solution: 1. Explicitly generate those files via cmake as a part of IDE project creation (1 time action) 2. Relay on CMSIS Pack for IDE, where generated files must be presents Any alternative thoughts? Anton -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi, Well, yes. Not sure what backwards compatibility would mean in a complex application with a configurable set of services and service capabilities. Semantic versioning could work quite well for components (i.e. secure service implementations) though. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 16 November 2020 18:04 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi George, All, Thanks for the thoughts. Can I assume that you suggest to stay with option 1? The semantic versioning was proposed several times and sounds reasonable because it gives a meaning to each version component so downstream projects could rely on it. Yes, a version of a product represents some quality status but in my view that depends on convention. For downstream projects reference, TF-M issues releases periodically so a version represents a stable point in time and occasionally brings new features / fixes. Cheers, 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: 16 November 2020 08:17 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] Semantic versioning Hi, I miss something here. What is being discussed, what is the purpose of changing version numbering? * Is more granularity needed and each or some lesser quality levels should be assigned a version number too? Currently a new version number is assigned if a new SW set reaches “Release” quality level. (Whatever that might be.) * Is there need for expressing backwards compatibility better? * Is the aim to enhance existing version numbers just by making them following a well-defined standard? I have the feeling different people are talking about different sub-topics. I think the most important purpose or having release numbers is to express quality. It could help on version numbers if quality would be defined cleaner. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M Sent: 16 November 2020 09:06 To: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Hu@arm.com>>; David Wang <David.Wang(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Wang@arm.com>>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@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] Semantic versioning I would vote for Option 3, and “.2” - Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag. – This provides the flexibility to have a released version with critical fixes only. If TF-M users want all the changes between the release and the fix they can take the master branch as well. Best Regards, Kevin From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of David Hu via TF-M Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 3:45 PM To: David Wang <David.Wang(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Wang@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems more reasonable to me. Hi David, I think we can leave tag v1.x.0 as it is and create a new tag v1.x.1 for this critical fix on master branch. It can be more easier to distinguish between tags. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of David Wang via TF-M Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 2:53 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] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 is a good. Just to clarify, for example, if v1.x.0 released, and we got a critical fix 2 months later. Then in your proposal, we: * Tag the current master which includes the fixing patch (and may also include some other merged/ongoing features after last release) as v1.x.1, or * Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag (keep it in a new branch) and tag the tip of the v1.x release branch as v1.x.1 Thanks. Regards, David Wang From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Townsend via TF-M Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 3:45 AM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems the most sensible to me for a project like TF-M at this stage. Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 20:19, Anton Komlev via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi, I would like to continue the discussion on TF-M semantic versioning started on the last tech forum. Currently TF-M uses a loosely defined versioning schema with major and minor versions, following TF-A. There are several calls to switch TF-M to semantic versioning. Here is the reminder of the meaning: (https://semver.org/) v1.2.3 : 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner, and 3. PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes. This is a good way to go for a mature project but TF-M will overkill from everyday re-versioning because of new patches. It was discussed on the forum and several options were proposed: 1. Do nothing, reasonably bumping up versions on release time only. 2. Use semantic versioning ignoring changes in PATCH by keeping it 0. So upcoming version could be: v1.2.0, next v1.3.0 and nothing in between. 3. Use option 2 but change PATCH when critical code change delivered within release cadence like a security vulnerability fix to let down-stream project relay on a fixed version. 4. Other ideas? Personally I tend to follow option 3 but looking for the community input. Thanks, Anton. -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning

by Anton Komlev

Hi George, All, Thanks for the thoughts. Can I assume that you suggest to stay with option 1? The semantic versioning was proposed several times and sounds reasonable because it gives a meaning to each version component so downstream projects could rely on it. Yes, a version of a product represents some quality status but in my view that depends on convention. For downstream projects reference, TF-M issues releases periodically so a version represents a stable point in time and occasionally brings new features / fixes. Cheers, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: 16 November 2020 08:17 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi, I miss something here. What is being discussed, what is the purpose of changing version numbering? * Is more granularity needed and each or some lesser quality levels should be assigned a version number too? Currently a new version number is assigned if a new SW set reaches “Release” quality level. (Whatever that might be.) * Is there need for expressing backwards compatibility better? * Is the aim to enhance existing version numbers just by making them following a well-defined standard? I have the feeling different people are talking about different sub-topics. I think the most important purpose or having release numbers is to express quality. It could help on version numbers if quality would be defined cleaner. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M Sent: 16 November 2020 09:06 To: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Hu@arm.com>>; David Wang <David.Wang(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Wang@arm.com>>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@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] Semantic versioning I would vote for Option 3, and “.2” - Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag. – This provides the flexibility to have a released version with critical fixes only. If TF-M users want all the changes between the release and the fix they can take the master branch as well. Best Regards, Kevin From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of David Hu via TF-M Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 3:45 PM To: David Wang <David.Wang(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Wang@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems more reasonable to me. Hi David, I think we can leave tag v1.x.0 as it is and create a new tag v1.x.1 for this critical fix on master branch. It can be more easier to distinguish between tags. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of David Wang via TF-M Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 2:53 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] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 is a good. Just to clarify, for example, if v1.x.0 released, and we got a critical fix 2 months later. Then in your proposal, we: * Tag the current master which includes the fixing patch (and may also include some other merged/ongoing features after last release) as v1.x.1, or * Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag (keep it in a new branch) and tag the tip of the v1.x release branch as v1.x.1 Thanks. Regards, David Wang From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Townsend via TF-M Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 3:45 AM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems the most sensible to me for a project like TF-M at this stage. Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 20:19, Anton Komlev via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi, I would like to continue the discussion on TF-M semantic versioning started on the last tech forum. Currently TF-M uses a loosely defined versioning schema with major and minor versions, following TF-A. There are several calls to switch TF-M to semantic versioning. Here is the reminder of the meaning: (https://semver.org/) v1.2.3 : 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner, and 3. PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes. This is a good way to go for a mature project but TF-M will overkill from everyday re-versioning because of new patches. It was discussed on the forum and several options were proposed: 1. Do nothing, reasonably bumping up versions on release time only. 2. Use semantic versioning ignoring changes in PATCH by keeping it 0. So upcoming version could be: v1.2.0, next v1.3.0 and nothing in between. 3. Use option 2 but change PATCH when critical code change delivered within release cadence like a security vulnerability fix to let down-stream project relay on a fixed version. 4. Other ideas? Personally I tend to follow option 3 but looking for the community input. Thanks, Anton. -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Combine secure and non-secure image

by Kevin Townsend

Hi Antonio, I'm not sure if this helps, but here is an example of how we sign the binaries for the MPS2 AN521, for example, after building the TF-M and Zephyr NS images, plus MCUBoot: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/966015f503d1438c25d597937… Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 16:19, Antonio Ken IANNILLO via TF-M < tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I abandoned the idea to build at once tf-m and zephyr and switched to > separated compilations. > > Now, I have both secure and non-secure binaries but I’m not sure how to > concatenate and sign them. > > I found the assemble.py script but I don’t know whether it is the correct > one or where to find the signing_layout. > > > > To be more specific, for my current target musca-a (going to switch to > musca-s as soon as it arrives): > > - I built TF-M > - I imported and included in my zephyr application both libpsa_api_ns.a > and libtfm_s_veneers.a > - I build my zephyr application > > Now (I suppose) I have to > > - merge zephyr.bin with tfm_s.bin > - sign the merged binary > - concatenate with bl2 > > I could not find any reference how to correctly do these last steps. > > > > Best, > > -- > > *Antonio Ken Iannillo* > > Research Scientist – SEDAN group > > SnT – Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust > > UNIVERSITÉ DU LUXEMBOURG > > > > CAMPUS KIRCHBERG > 29, avenue John F. Kennedy > L-1855 Luxembourg Kirchberg > T +352 46 66 44 9660 > > > > Join the conversation > > News <https://wwwen.uni.lu/snt/news_events> | Twitter > <https://twitter.com/SnT_uni_lu> | Linkedin > <https://www.linkedin.com/school/snt-lu/> > > www.uni.lu/snt > -- > TF-M mailing list > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m >

4 years, 5 months

3
2
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi, I miss something here. What is being discussed, what is the purpose of changing version numbering? * Is more granularity needed and each or some lesser quality levels should be assigned a version number too? Currently a new version number is assigned if a new SW set reaches “Release” quality level. (Whatever that might be.) * Is there need for expressing backwards compatibility better? * Is the aim to enhance existing version numbers just by making them following a well-defined standard? I have the feeling different people are talking about different sub-topics. I think the most important purpose or having release numbers is to express quality. It could help on version numbers if quality would be defined cleaner. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M Sent: 16 November 2020 09:06 To: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com>; David Wang <David.Wang(a)arm.com>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning I would vote for Option 3, and “.2” - Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag. – This provides the flexibility to have a released version with critical fixes only. If TF-M users want all the changes between the release and the fix they can take the master branch as well. Best Regards, Kevin From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of David Hu via TF-M Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 3:45 PM To: David Wang <David.Wang(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Wang@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems more reasonable to me. Hi David, I think we can leave tag v1.x.0 as it is and create a new tag v1.x.1 for this critical fix on master branch. It can be more easier to distinguish between tags. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of David Wang via TF-M Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 2:53 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] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 is a good. Just to clarify, for example, if v1.x.0 released, and we got a critical fix 2 months later. Then in your proposal, we: * Tag the current master which includes the fixing patch (and may also include some other merged/ongoing features after last release) as v1.x.1, or * Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag (keep it in a new branch) and tag the tip of the v1.x release branch as v1.x.1 Thanks. Regards, David Wang From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Townsend via TF-M Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 3:45 AM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems the most sensible to me for a project like TF-M at this stage. Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 20:19, Anton Komlev via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi, I would like to continue the discussion on TF-M semantic versioning started on the last tech forum. Currently TF-M uses a loosely defined versioning schema with major and minor versions, following TF-A. There are several calls to switch TF-M to semantic versioning. Here is the reminder of the meaning: (https://semver.org/) v1.2.3 : 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner, and 3. PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes. This is a good way to go for a mature project but TF-M will overkill from everyday re-versioning because of new patches. It was discussed on the forum and several options were proposed: 1. Do nothing, reasonably bumping up versions on release time only. 2. Use semantic versioning ignoring changes in PATCH by keeping it 0. So upcoming version could be: v1.2.0, next v1.3.0 and nothing in between. 3. Use option 2 but change PATCH when critical code change delivered within release cadence like a security vulnerability fix to let down-stream project relay on a fixed version. 4. Other ideas? Personally I tend to follow option 3 but looking for the community input. Thanks, Anton. -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning

by Kevin Peng

I would vote for Option 3, and “.2” - Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag. – This provides the flexibility to have a released version with critical fixes only. If TF-M users want all the changes between the release and the fix they can take the master branch as well. Best Regards, Kevin From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David Hu via TF-M Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 3:45 PM To: David Wang <David.Wang(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems more reasonable to me. Hi David, I think we can leave tag v1.x.0 as it is and create a new tag v1.x.1 for this critical fix on master branch. It can be more easier to distinguish between tags. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of David Wang via TF-M Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 2:53 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] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 is a good. Just to clarify, for example, if v1.x.0 released, and we got a critical fix 2 months later. Then in your proposal, we: * Tag the current master which includes the fixing patch (and may also include some other merged/ongoing features after last release) as v1.x.1, or * Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag (keep it in a new branch) and tag the tip of the v1.x release branch as v1.x.1 Thanks. Regards, David Wang From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Townsend via TF-M Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 3:45 AM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems the most sensible to me for a project like TF-M at this stage. Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 20:19, Anton Komlev via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi, I would like to continue the discussion on TF-M semantic versioning started on the last tech forum. Currently TF-M uses a loosely defined versioning schema with major and minor versions, following TF-A. There are several calls to switch TF-M to semantic versioning. Here is the reminder of the meaning: (https://semver.org/) v1.2.3 : 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner, and 3. PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes. This is a good way to go for a mature project but TF-M will overkill from everyday re-versioning because of new patches. It was discussed on the forum and several options were proposed: 1. Do nothing, reasonably bumping up versions on release time only. 2. Use semantic versioning ignoring changes in PATCH by keeping it 0. So upcoming version could be: v1.2.0, next v1.3.0 and nothing in between. 3. Use option 2 but change PATCH when critical code change delivered within release cadence like a security vulnerability fix to let down-stream project relay on a fixed version. 4. Other ideas? Personally I tend to follow option 3 but looking for the community input. Thanks, Anton. -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning

by David Hu

Hi Anton, Option 3 seems more reasonable to me. Hi David, I think we can leave tag v1.x.0 as it is and create a new tag v1.x.1 for this critical fix on master branch. It can be more easier to distinguish between tags. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David Wang via TF-M Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 2:53 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 is a good. Just to clarify, for example, if v1.x.0 released, and we got a critical fix 2 months later. Then in your proposal, we: * Tag the current master which includes the fixing patch (and may also include some other merged/ongoing features after last release) as v1.x.1, or * Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag (keep it in a new branch) and tag the tip of the v1.x release branch as v1.x.1 Thanks. Regards, David Wang From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Townsend via TF-M Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 3:45 AM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems the most sensible to me for a project like TF-M at this stage. Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 20:19, Anton Komlev via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi, I would like to continue the discussion on TF-M semantic versioning started on the last tech forum. Currently TF-M uses a loosely defined versioning schema with major and minor versions, following TF-A. There are several calls to switch TF-M to semantic versioning. Here is the reminder of the meaning: (https://semver.org/) v1.2.3 : 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner, and 3. PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes. This is a good way to go for a mature project but TF-M will overkill from everyday re-versioning because of new patches. It was discussed on the forum and several options were proposed: 1. Do nothing, reasonably bumping up versions on release time only. 2. Use semantic versioning ignoring changes in PATCH by keeping it 0. So upcoming version could be: v1.2.0, next v1.3.0 and nothing in between. 3. Use option 2 but change PATCH when critical code change delivered within release cadence like a security vulnerability fix to let down-stream project relay on a fixed version. 4. Other ideas? Personally I tend to follow option 3 but looking for the community input. Thanks, Anton. -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning

by David Wang

Hi Anton, Option 3 is a good. Just to clarify, for example, if v1.x.0 released, and we got a critical fix 2 months later. Then in your proposal, we: * Tag the current master which includes the fixing patch (and may also include some other merged/ongoing features after last release) as v1.x.1, or * Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag (keep it in a new branch) and tag the tip of the v1.x release branch as v1.x.1 Thanks. Regards, David Wang From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Kevin Townsend via TF-M Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 3:45 AM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems the most sensible to me for a project like TF-M at this stage. Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 20:19, Anton Komlev via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi, I would like to continue the discussion on TF-M semantic versioning started on the last tech forum. Currently TF-M uses a loosely defined versioning schema with major and minor versions, following TF-A. There are several calls to switch TF-M to semantic versioning. Here is the reminder of the meaning: (https://semver.org/) v1.2.3 : 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner, and 3. PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes. This is a good way to go for a mature project but TF-M will overkill from everyday re-versioning because of new patches. It was discussed on the forum and several options were proposed: 1. Do nothing, reasonably bumping up versions on release time only. 2. Use semantic versioning ignoring changes in PATCH by keeping it 0. So upcoming version could be: v1.2.0, next v1.3.0 and nothing in between. 3. Use option 2 but change PATCH when critical code change delivered within release cadence like a security vulnerability fix to let down-stream project relay on a fixed version. 4. Other ideas? Personally I tend to follow option 3 but looking for the community input. Thanks, Anton. -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning

by Ken Liu

Option 3 +1. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Kevin Townsend via TF-M Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 3:45 AM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems the most sensible to me for a project like TF-M at this stage. Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 20:19, Anton Komlev via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi, I would like to continue the discussion on TF-M semantic versioning started on the last tech forum. Currently TF-M uses a loosely defined versioning schema with major and minor versions, following TF-A. There are several calls to switch TF-M to semantic versioning. Here is the reminder of the meaning: (https://semver.org/) v1.2.3 : 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner, and 3. PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes. This is a good way to go for a mature project but TF-M will overkill from everyday re-versioning because of new patches. It was discussed on the forum and several options were proposed: 1. Do nothing, reasonably bumping up versions on release time only. 2. Use semantic versioning ignoring changes in PATCH by keeping it 0. So upcoming version could be: v1.2.0, next v1.3.0 and nothing in between. 3. Use option 2 but change PATCH when critical code change delivered within release cadence like a security vulnerability fix to let down-stream project relay on a fixed version. 4. Other ideas? Personally I tend to follow option 3 but looking for the community input. Thanks, Anton. -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning

by Kevin Townsend

Hi Anton, Option 3 seems the most sensible to me for a project like TF-M at this stage. Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 20:19, Anton Komlev via TF-M < tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I would like to continue the discussion on TF-M semantic versioning > started on the last tech forum. > > Currently TF-M uses a loosely defined versioning schema with major and > minor versions, following TF-A. > > There are several calls to switch TF-M to semantic versioning. > > Here is the reminder of the meaning: (https://semver.org/) v1.2.3 : > > 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, > 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible > manner, and > 3. PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes. > > > > This is a good way to go for a mature project but TF-M will overkill from > everyday re-versioning because of new patches. It was discussed on the > forum and several options were proposed: > > 1. Do nothing, reasonably bumping up versions on release time only. > 2. Use semantic versioning ignoring changes in PATCH by keeping it 0. > So upcoming version could be: v1.2.0, next v1.3.0 and nothing in between. > 3. Use option 2 but change PATCH when critical code change delivered > within release cadence like a security vulnerability fix to let down-stream > project relay on a fixed version. > 4. Other ideas? > > > > Personally I tend to follow option 3 but looking for the community input. > > > > Thanks, > > Anton. > > -- > TF-M mailing list > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m >

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Semantic versioning

by Anton Komlev

Hi, I would like to continue the discussion on TF-M semantic versioning started on the last tech forum. Currently TF-M uses a loosely defined versioning schema with major and minor versions, following TF-A. There are several calls to switch TF-M to semantic versioning. Here is the reminder of the meaning: (https://semver.org/) v1.2.3 : 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner, and 3. PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes. This is a good way to go for a mature project but TF-M will overkill from everyday re-versioning because of new patches. It was discussed on the forum and several options were proposed: 1. Do nothing, reasonably bumping up versions on release time only. 2. Use semantic versioning ignoring changes in PATCH by keeping it 0. So upcoming version could be: v1.2.0, next v1.3.0 and nothing in between. 3. Use option 2 but change PATCH when critical code change delivered within release cadence like a security vulnerability fix to let down-stream project relay on a fixed version. 4. Other ideas? Personally I tend to follow option 3 but looking for the community input. Thanks, Anton.

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Combine secure and non-secure image

by Anton Komlev

Hi Antonio, This might be helpful in addition to Tamas: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/view/TF-M/job/tf-m-build-docs-nightly/lastSt… The best, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Tamas Ban via TF-M Sent: 13 November 2020 15:36 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Combine secure and non-secure image Hi Antonio, Required steps on Musca-A (only single image boot is supported by MCUboot due to RAM_LOAD upgrade mode limitation): - Concatenate zephyr.bin + tfm_s.bin. [ 93%] Generating tfm_s_ns.bin cd /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bl2/ext/mcuboot && ../../../../py_env/bin/python3 /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/bl2/ext/mcuboot/scripts/assemble.py --layout /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bl2/ext/mcuboot/CMakeFiles/signing_layout_s.dir/signing_layout_s_ns.o -s /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bin/tfm_s.bin -n /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bin/tfm_ns.bin -o tfm_s_ns.bin * Signing the concatenated binary: [ 94%] Generating tfm_s_ns_signed.bin cd /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bl2/ext/mcuboot && ../../../../py_env/bin/python3 /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/bl2/ext/mcuboot/scripts/wrapper/wrapper.py -v 1.1.0 --layout /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bl2/ext/mcuboot/CMakeFiles/signing_layout_s.dir/signing_layout_s_ns.o -k /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/bl2/ext/mcuboot/root-RSA-3072.pem --public-key-format full --align 1 --pad --pad-header -H 0x400 -s auto -d "(0, 0.0.0+0)" -d "(1, 0.0.0+0)" tfm_s_ns.bin /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bl2/ext/mcuboot/tfm_s_ns_signed.bin * Combine bl2.bin and tfm_s_ns.bin: srec_cat build/bin/bl2.bin -Binary -offset 0x200000 build/bin/tfm_s_ns_signed.bin -Binary -offset 0x220000 -o tfm.hex -Intel Tamas From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Townsend via TF-M Sent: 2020. november 13., péntek 16:33 To: Antonio Ken IANNILLO <antonioken.iannillo(a)uni.lu<mailto:antonioken.iannillo@uni.lu>> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Combine secure and non-secure image Hi Antonio, I'm not sure if this helps, but here is an example of how we sign the binaries for the MPS2 AN521, for example, after building the TF-M and Zephyr NS images, plus MCUBoot: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/966015f503d1438c25d597937… Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 16:19, Antonio Ken IANNILLO via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi all, I abandoned the idea to build at once tf-m and zephyr and switched to separated compilations. Now, I have both secure and non-secure binaries but I’m not sure how to concatenate and sign them. I found the assemble.py script but I don’t know whether it is the correct one or where to find the signing_layout. To be more specific, for my current target musca-a (going to switch to musca-s as soon as it arrives): * I built TF-M * I imported and included in my zephyr application both libpsa_api_ns.a and libtfm_s_veneers.a * I build my zephyr application Now (I suppose) I have to · merge zephyr.bin with tfm_s.bin · sign the merged binary · concatenate with bl2 I could not find any reference how to correctly do these last steps. Best, -- Antonio Ken Iannillo Research Scientist – SEDAN group SnT – Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust UNIVERSITÉ DU LUXEMBOURG CAMPUS KIRCHBERG 29, avenue John F. Kennedy L-1855 Luxembourg Kirchberg T +352 46 66 44 9660 Join the conversation News<https://wwwen.uni.lu/snt/news_events> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/SnT_uni_lu> | Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/school/snt-lu/> www.uni.lu/snt<http://www.uni.lu/snt> -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Combine secure and non-secure image

by Tamas Ban

Hi Antonio, Required steps on Musca-A (only single image boot is supported by MCUboot due to RAM_LOAD upgrade mode limitation): - Concatenate zephyr.bin + tfm_s.bin. [ 93%] Generating tfm_s_ns.bin cd /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bl2/ext/mcuboot && ../../../../py_env/bin/python3 /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/bl2/ext/mcuboot/scripts/assemble.py --layout /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bl2/ext/mcuboot/CMakeFiles/signing_layout_s.dir/signing_layout_s_ns.o -s /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bin/tfm_s.bin -n /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bin/tfm_ns.bin -o tfm_s_ns.bin * Signing the concatenated binary: [ 94%] Generating tfm_s_ns_signed.bin cd /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bl2/ext/mcuboot && ../../../../py_env/bin/python3 /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/bl2/ext/mcuboot/scripts/wrapper/wrapper.py -v 1.1.0 --layout /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bl2/ext/mcuboot/CMakeFiles/signing_layout_s.dir/signing_layout_s_ns.o -k /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/bl2/ext/mcuboot/root-RSA-3072.pem --public-key-format full --align 1 --pad --pad-header -H 0x400 -s auto -d "(0, 0.0.0+0)" -d "(1, 0.0.0+0)" tfm_s_ns.bin /home/tamban01/repo/tf-m/build/bl2/ext/mcuboot/tfm_s_ns_signed.bin * Combine bl2.bin and tfm_s_ns.bin: srec_cat build/bin/bl2.bin -Binary -offset 0x200000 build/bin/tfm_s_ns_signed.bin -Binary -offset 0x220000 -o tfm.hex -Intel Tamas From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Kevin Townsend via TF-M Sent: 2020. november 13., péntek 16:33 To: Antonio Ken IANNILLO <antonioken.iannillo(a)uni.lu> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Combine secure and non-secure image Hi Antonio, I'm not sure if this helps, but here is an example of how we sign the binaries for the MPS2 AN521, for example, after building the TF-M and Zephyr NS images, plus MCUBoot: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/966015f503d1438c25d597937… Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 16:19, Antonio Ken IANNILLO via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi all, I abandoned the idea to build at once tf-m and zephyr and switched to separated compilations. Now, I have both secure and non-secure binaries but I’m not sure how to concatenate and sign them. I found the assemble.py script but I don’t know whether it is the correct one or where to find the signing_layout. To be more specific, for my current target musca-a (going to switch to musca-s as soon as it arrives): * I built TF-M * I imported and included in my zephyr application both libpsa_api_ns.a and libtfm_s_veneers.a * I build my zephyr application Now (I suppose) I have to · merge zephyr.bin with tfm_s.bin · sign the merged binary · concatenate with bl2 I could not find any reference how to correctly do these last steps. Best, -- Antonio Ken Iannillo Research Scientist – SEDAN group SnT – Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust UNIVERSITÉ DU LUXEMBOURG CAMPUS KIRCHBERG 29, avenue John F. Kennedy L-1855 Luxembourg Kirchberg T +352 46 66 44 9660 Join the conversation News<https://wwwen.uni.lu/snt/news_events> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/SnT_uni_lu> | Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/school/snt-lu/> www.uni.lu/snt<http://www.uni.lu/snt> -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Combine secure and non-secure image

by Antonio Ken IANNILLO

Hi all, I abandoned the idea to build at once tf-m and zephyr and switched to separated compilations. Now, I have both secure and non-secure binaries but I’m not sure how to concatenate and sign them. I found the assemble.py script but I don’t know whether it is the correct one or where to find the signing_layout. To be more specific, for my current target musca-a (going to switch to musca-s as soon as it arrives): I built TF-M I imported and included in my zephyr application both libpsa_api_ns.a and libtfm_s_veneers.a I build my zephyr application Now (I suppose) I have to merge zephyr.bin with tfm_s.bin sign the merged binary concatenate with bl2 I could not find any reference how to correctly do these last steps. Best, -- Antonio Ken Iannillo Research Scientist – SEDAN group SnT – Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust UNIVERSITÉ DU LUXEMBOURG CAMPUS KIRCHBERG 29, avenue John F. Kennedy L-1855 Luxembourg Kirchberg T +352 46 66 44 9660 Join the conversation News | Twitter | Linkedin www.uni.lu/snt

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Generated files location

by Raef Coles

Hi, As an intermediate step, we've made a modification to the file generation code so that file can be generated without cmake being run. This generation can be run by: ``` python3 tools/tfm_parse_manifest_list.py -m tools/tfm_manifest_list.yaml -f tools/tfm_generated_file_list.yaml -o <output dir> ``` Which will output the files into the specified output directory. if the `-o` flag is not provided then the files will be generated into the TFM source tree. Note that this method still requires knowledge of the location of some dependencies, as this cannot be provided by cmake. When run in standalone mode, these paths are gathered from environment variables, and generation will fail if those variables are not set. Thus: ``` env TFM_TEST_PATH=$(realpath ../tf-m-tests/test) python3 tools/tfm_parse_manifest_list.py -m tools/tfm_manifest_list.yaml -f tools/tfm_generated_file_list.yaml ``` Raef ________________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Andrej Butok via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 20 October 2020 08:39 To: Anton Komlev Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Generated files location Hi Anton If it’s not possible to avoid a file generation now, it’s good to have pre-generated files for a most typical configuration (l2, IPC etc.). As I mentioned before, ideally to use TFM as a real component/framework without generation of any source code. BUT If you believe, this requirement breaks a TFM concept, just tell us. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:27 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Generated files location Hi Andrej, Essentially, do you mean to move the files back to code tree and synch them with templates manually as it was ? Cheers, Anton From: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com<mailto:andrey.butok@nxp.com>> Sent: 19 October 2020 16:15 To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: RE: Generated files location Hi Anton, Another option: 3. Avoid the mandatory on-the-fly generation. Try to make TFM a component/framework, which is configurable by compile & run time parameters. Thanks, Andrej 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: Monday, October 19, 2020 5:00 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] Generated files location Hi, Some source files in TF-M are templated and generated inside /<build_dir>/generated/ on the fly as a part of build process. This guaranty consistency between templates and generated but might make a trouble for IDE, where not all source files exist at the first run. I see 2 options for solution: 1. Explicitly generate those files via cmake as a part of IDE project creation (1 time action) 2. Relay on CMSIS Pack for IDE, where generated files must be presents Any alternative thoughts? Anton

4 years, 5 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Typo in return value (ps_object_system.c)

by Jamie Fox

Hi Robert, Thanks for the bug report. I have pushed a fix for review: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6986 Kind regards, Jamie From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Robert Rostohar via TF-M Sent: 12 November 2020 13:57 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Typo in return value (ps_object_system.c) Hi, I believe there is a small typo in the return value of function ps_read_object (ps_object_system.c). This results in build failure of Non-encrypted Protected Storage. https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/secure_fw/… The define used should be "PSA_ERROR_DATA_CORRUPT" and not "PSA_PS_ERROR_DATA_CORRUPT". Best regards, Robert

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Typo in return value (ps_object_system.c)

by Robert Rostohar

Hi, I believe there is a small typo in the return value of function ps_read_object (ps_object_system.c). This results in build failure of Non-encrypted Protected Storage. https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/secure_fw/… The define used should be "PSA_ERROR_DATA_CORRUPT" and not "PSA_PS_ERROR_DATA_CORRUPT". Best regards, Robert

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - November 12

by Mingyang Sun

Hi Anton, I have a topic, Partition Storage Arrangement, to introduce partition data storage briefly, for about 20 minutes. Thanks, Mingyang From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:17 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - November 12 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, November 12 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

4 years, 5 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2

by Anton Komlev

Hi, New TF-M Release Candidate 2 is tagged by TF-Mv1.2-RC2. Please update all repositories as it contain fixes for issues found in RC1. Best regards, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 04 November 2020 16:35 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2 Hi, All TF-M repositories are tagged with TF-Mv1.2-RC1 tag, marking the code freeze and beginning of the release candidate testing. 1. tf-m-tools 2. tf-m-tests 3. trusted-firmware-m 4. tf-m-ci-scripts 5. tf-m-job-configs Please use this tag for tests and report all issues found here. The best, Anton 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: 02 November 2020 14:28 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] Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2 Hi All, This is a reminder and heads up that TF-Mv1.2 release is planned for the end of November and TF-M code repository is aimed for freeze on Nov 4th (Wed), tagged by TF-Mv1.2-RC1 for testing. Availability of the tag will be notified via this mailing list. Thanks, Anton

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

GNU Arm compiler v6.3.1 deprecation heads up

by Minos Galanakis

Hi, With the upcoming release of TF-M 1.2, we are considering deprecating the GNU Arm compiler v6.3.1 to be able to reallocate testing bandwidth to newer and more up to date versions ( 7+ ) Before doing so I would like to ask for the community's feedback. Is anyone using this compiler, and if so, would you be affected by the change? Are there any other reasons we should consider keeping it in to the test plan? Regards, Minos

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2

by Anton Komlev

Hi, All TF-M repositories are tagged with TF-Mv1.2-RC1 tag, marking the code freeze and beginning of the release candidate testing. 1. tf-m-tools 2. tf-m-tests 3. trusted-firmware-m 4. tf-m-ci-scripts 5. tf-m-job-configs Please use this tag for tests and report all issues found here. The best, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 02 November 2020 14:28 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2 Hi All, This is a reminder and heads up that TF-Mv1.2 release is planned for the end of November and TF-M code repository is aimed for freeze on Nov 4th (Wed), tagged by TF-Mv1.2-RC1 for testing. Availability of the tag will be notified via this mailing list. Thanks, Anton

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Technical Forum call - November 12

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, November 12 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

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test

by Kevin Peng

Just adding some hints from the TF-M point of view. The TF-M test cases are RTOS independent. And test entry functions are provided for integrating the tests to any RTOS - test_app() You just need to call them in your application thread. Of course, you need to implement the os_wrapper APIs as well. You can refer to the os_wrapper_cmsis_rtos_v2.c for details. The old build system of TF-M used to provide libraries of the tests. The new build system is not having those yet. So the source codes need to be built. The test case libraries should be added back to the new build system and then integrating tf-m tests to RTOS should be much more direct. Best Regards, Kevin -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Raef Coles via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 11:19 PM To: Antonio Ken IANNILLO <antonioken.iannillo(a)uni.lu>; Kevin Townsend (kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org) <kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test Good spot Antonio, those docs are out of date. I'll try to get them updated before the code freeze. Raef ________________________________________ From: Antonio Ken IANNILLO Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2020 14:35 To: Raef Coles; Kevin Townsend (kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org) Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test Hi Raef, I agree with you, also reading the documentation https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/view/TF-M/job/tf-m-build-docs-nightly/lastSt… (even if it seems obsolete since some files are missing). For example, are now the static library for the test included in the one you mentioned? I'm using the module offered by zephyr to build and import the tfm, but I get a lot of missing references. Further, I searched in the install directory built by tfm and I cannot really find all of them. -- Antonio Ken Iannillo On 03/11/2020, 15:08, "Raef Coles" <Raef.Coles(a)arm.com> wrote: One of the things tfm produces is the NS api static library, which should be found in `interface/libpsa_api_ns.a`. There is also a ns platforms static lib in the same directory. I'm not sure how easy it is to pick these up from the zephyr buildsystem, but those should contain the symbols you want. Raef ________________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Antonio Ken IANNILLO via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 03 November 2020 11:45 To: Kevin Townsend (kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org) Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test Hi Kevin, Thank you for your message. I’m trying to create a zephyr application copying the tfm-test non secure application (https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/master/tf-m-t…). The only thing that is not clear is how to include the tfm platform code (e.g., https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/master/truste…). I suppose as a static library from the zephyr tfm module but I cannot really find how. Can you point me to the right direction? Or do you have a different way to run the tfm-tests? Best, -- Antonio Ken Iannillo From: Kevin Townsend <kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org> Date: Monday, 2 November 2020 at 13:08 To: Antonio Ken IANNILLO <antonioken.iannillo(a)uni.lu> Cc: "tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test Hi Antonio, There is currently an issue filed in Zephyr to add a new sample application that will make it easy to run the PSA API tests via Zephyr, but it we're currently working on finalizing higher priority changes before the 1.2 code freeze later this week: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/29476 So, there isn't an 'easy' way to build these tests in Zephyr today out of the box using Zephyr as the RTOS on the NS side, unless you want to have a go at it yourself in the short term while we try to make sure Zephyr is ready for the changes in T-M 1.2. Best regards, Kevin On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 10:29, Antonio Ken IANNILLO via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi all, I wanted to use some other RTOS in the NS side while testing tf-m. Is there a simple way to use the Zephyr kernel or FreeRTOS in the tf-m-test (-DTEST_S=ON, -DTEST_NS=ON) instead of the default RTX? Best, -- Antonio Ken Iannillo Research Scientist – SEDAN group SnT – Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust UNIVERSITÉ DU LUXEMBOURG CAMPUS KIRCHBERG 29, avenue John F. Kennedy L-1855 Luxembourg Kirchberg T +352 46 66 44 9660 Join the conversation News<https://wwwen.uni.lu/snt/news_events> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/SnT_uni_lu> | Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/school/snt-lu/> www.uni.lu/snt<http://www.uni.lu/snt> -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test

by Raef Coles

Good spot Antonio, those docs are out of date. I'll try to get them updated before the code freeze. Raef ________________________________________ From: Antonio Ken IANNILLO Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2020 14:35 To: Raef Coles; Kevin Townsend (kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org) Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test Hi Raef, I agree with you, also reading the documentation https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/view/TF-M/job/tf-m-build-docs-nightly/lastSt… (even if it seems obsolete since some files are missing). For example, are now the static library for the test included in the one you mentioned? I'm using the module offered by zephyr to build and import the tfm, but I get a lot of missing references. Further, I searched in the install directory built by tfm and I cannot really find all of them. -- Antonio Ken Iannillo On 03/11/2020, 15:08, "Raef Coles" <Raef.Coles(a)arm.com> wrote: One of the things tfm produces is the NS api static library, which should be found in `interface/libpsa_api_ns.a`. There is also a ns platforms static lib in the same directory. I'm not sure how easy it is to pick these up from the zephyr buildsystem, but those should contain the symbols you want. Raef ________________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Antonio Ken IANNILLO via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 03 November 2020 11:45 To: Kevin Townsend (kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org) Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test Hi Kevin, Thank you for your message. I’m trying to create a zephyr application copying the tfm-test non secure application (https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/master/tf-m-t…). The only thing that is not clear is how to include the tfm platform code (e.g., https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/master/truste…). I suppose as a static library from the zephyr tfm module but I cannot really find how. Can you point me to the right direction? Or do you have a different way to run the tfm-tests? Best, -- Antonio Ken Iannillo From: Kevin Townsend <kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org> Date: Monday, 2 November 2020 at 13:08 To: Antonio Ken IANNILLO <antonioken.iannillo(a)uni.lu> Cc: "tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test Hi Antonio, There is currently an issue filed in Zephyr to add a new sample application that will make it easy to run the PSA API tests via Zephyr, but it we're currently working on finalizing higher priority changes before the 1.2 code freeze later this week: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/29476 So, there isn't an 'easy' way to build these tests in Zephyr today out of the box using Zephyr as the RTOS on the NS side, unless you want to have a go at it yourself in the short term while we try to make sure Zephyr is ready for the changes in T-M 1.2. Best regards, Kevin On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 10:29, Antonio Ken IANNILLO via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi all, I wanted to use some other RTOS in the NS side while testing tf-m. Is there a simple way to use the Zephyr kernel or FreeRTOS in the tf-m-test (-DTEST_S=ON, -DTEST_NS=ON) instead of the default RTX? Best, -- Antonio Ken Iannillo Research Scientist – SEDAN group SnT – Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust UNIVERSITÉ DU LUXEMBOURG CAMPUS KIRCHBERG 29, avenue John F. Kennedy L-1855 Luxembourg Kirchberg T +352 46 66 44 9660 Join the conversation News<https://wwwen.uni.lu/snt/news_events> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/SnT_uni_lu> | Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/school/snt-lu/> www.uni.lu/snt<http://www.uni.lu/snt> -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test

by Raef Coles

One of the things tfm produces is the NS api static library, which should be found in `interface/libpsa_api_ns.a`. There is also a ns platforms static lib in the same directory. I'm not sure how easy it is to pick these up from the zephyr buildsystem, but those should contain the symbols you want. Raef ________________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Antonio Ken IANNILLO via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 03 November 2020 11:45 To: Kevin Townsend (kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org) Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test Hi Kevin, Thank you for your message. I’m trying to create a zephyr application copying the tfm-test non secure application (https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/master/tf-m-t…). The only thing that is not clear is how to include the tfm platform code (e.g., https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/master/truste…). I suppose as a static library from the zephyr tfm module but I cannot really find how. Can you point me to the right direction? Or do you have a different way to run the tfm-tests? Best, -- Antonio Ken Iannillo From: Kevin Townsend <kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org> Date: Monday, 2 November 2020 at 13:08 To: Antonio Ken IANNILLO <antonioken.iannillo(a)uni.lu> Cc: "tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test Hi Antonio, There is currently an issue filed in Zephyr to add a new sample application that will make it easy to run the PSA API tests via Zephyr, but it we're currently working on finalizing higher priority changes before the 1.2 code freeze later this week: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/29476 So, there isn't an 'easy' way to build these tests in Zephyr today out of the box using Zephyr as the RTOS on the NS side, unless you want to have a go at it yourself in the short term while we try to make sure Zephyr is ready for the changes in T-M 1.2. Best regards, Kevin On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 10:29, Antonio Ken IANNILLO via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi all, I wanted to use some other RTOS in the NS side while testing tf-m. Is there a simple way to use the Zephyr kernel or FreeRTOS in the tf-m-test (-DTEST_S=ON, -DTEST_NS=ON) instead of the default RTX? Best, -- Antonio Ken Iannillo Research Scientist – SEDAN group SnT – Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust UNIVERSITÉ DU LUXEMBOURG CAMPUS KIRCHBERG 29, avenue John F. Kennedy L-1855 Luxembourg Kirchberg T +352 46 66 44 9660 Join the conversation News<https://wwwen.uni.lu/snt/news_events> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/SnT_uni_lu> | Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/school/snt-lu/> www.uni.lu/snt<http://www.uni.lu/snt> -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 5 months

3
3
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Current IAR support

by Raef Coles

Sorry Thomas - Someday I'll get that IAR license working and stop breaking support every 5 seconds. Thanks for all the hard work and fixes. Patches look good, have reviewed. Raef ________________________________________ 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: 03 November 2020 12:22 To: DeMars, Alan via TF-M Subject: [TF-M] Current IAR support Just when you think you have nailed everfything down, you decide to start with a fresh clone and stuff don't build anymore ;) See: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6766 I have now gone over and tried building everything that has IAR support and here are my findings. I have used the following patches: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tests/+/5978 https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6766 I have built for the following targets: musca_a mps2/an519 mps2/an521 mps2/an539 mps2/sse-200_aws mps3/an524 cypress/psoc64 nxp/lpcxpresso55s69 (-DBL2=False as bl2 support appears to have been added recently to this target) stm/nucleo_l552ze_q stm/stm32l562e_dk The mps2/fvp_sse300 requires a compiler with support for the M55, and the IAR compiler with support for this is not yet released. I have run tests on the following targets: musca_a mps2/an519 mps2/an521 mps2/an539 The cypress/psoc64 board I have appears to be obsolete now and I could not flash the secure image to it. The nuvoton/m2351 appears to have IAR support, but it appears untested as it gives linking errors for the bl2 and NS startup files. There are some old and new warnings for type issues and some other minor things. The QCBOR NaN tests are still failing, see: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T700 This really is an issue where the ARM ABI and IEEE 754 are incompatible and we are following the ARM ABI. In reality neither ARMCLANG nor GNUARM are fully ARM ABI compliant as they are not ignoring the relevant bits. 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>

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Current IAR support

by Thomas Törnblom

Just when you think you have nailed everfything down, you decide to start with a fresh clone and stuff don't build anymore ;) See: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6766 I have now gone over and tried building everything that has IAR support and here are my findings. I have used the following patches: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tests/+/5978 https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6766 I have built for the following targets: musca_a mps2/an519 mps2/an521 mps2/an539 mps2/sse-200_aws mps3/an524 cypress/psoc64 nxp/lpcxpresso55s69 (-DBL2=False as bl2 support appears to have been added recently to this target) stm/nucleo_l552ze_q stm/stm32l562e_dk The mps2/fvp_sse300 requires a compiler with support for the M55, and the IAR compiler with support for this is not yet released. I have run tests on the following targets: musca_a mps2/an519 mps2/an521 mps2/an539 The cypress/psoc64 board I have appears to be obsolete now and I could not flash the secure image to it. The nuvoton/m2351 appears to have IAR support, but it appears untested as it gives linking errors for the bl2 and NS startup files. There are some old and new warnings for type issues and some other minor things. The QCBOR NaN tests are still failing, see: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T700 This really is an issue where the ARM ABI and IEEE 754 are incompatible and we are following the ARM ABI. In reality neither ARMCLANG nor GNUARM are fully ARM ABI compliant as they are not ignoring the relevant bits. 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>

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test

by Kevin Townsend

Hi Antonio, There is currently an issue filed in Zephyr to add a new sample application that will make it easy to run the PSA API tests via Zephyr, but it we're currently working on finalizing higher priority changes before the 1.2 code freeze later this week: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/29476 So, there isn't an 'easy' way to build these tests in Zephyr today out of the box using Zephyr as the RTOS on the NS side, unless you want to have a go at it yourself in the short term while we try to make sure Zephyr is ready for the changes in T-M 1.2. Best regards, Kevin On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 10:29, Antonio Ken IANNILLO via TF-M < tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I wanted to use some other RTOS in the NS side while testing tf-m. > > Is there a simple way to use the Zephyr kernel or FreeRTOS in the > tf-m-test (-DTEST_S=ON, -DTEST_NS=ON) instead of the default RTX? > > > > Best, > > -- > > *Antonio Ken Iannillo* > > Research Scientist – SEDAN group > > SnT – Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust > > UNIVERSITÉ DU LUXEMBOURG > > > > CAMPUS KIRCHBERG > 29, avenue John F. Kennedy > L-1855 Luxembourg Kirchberg > T +352 46 66 44 9660 > > > > Join the conversation > > News <https://wwwen.uni.lu/snt/news_events> | Twitter > <https://twitter.com/SnT_uni_lu> | Linkedin > <https://www.linkedin.com/school/snt-lu/> > > www.uni.lu/snt > -- > TF-M mailing list > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m >

4 years, 5 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] cmake error

by Malcolm Fernandes

I've verified that reverting the tf-m-tests patch fixes the build failures that Chris outlined. Cheers, Mal On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:16 PM David Hu via TF-M < tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > > > Sorry for the build failure. A patch is merged into tf-m-tests but its > peer ones in TF-M haven’t been approved yet. > > I have temporarily reverted that tf-m-tests patch. Please have another try. > > > > Best regards, > > Hu Ziji > > > > *From:* TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> * On Behalf Of *Christopher > Brand via TF-M > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 3, 2020 1:54 AM > *To:* tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > *Subject:* [TF-M] cmake error > > > > I just fetched the latest master > (1655ef5120e99c62782575d0a8b3707ebfc2148e), and I’m now getting a cmake > error: > > $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Relwithdebinfo '-GUnix Makefiles' > -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake > -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Relwithdebinfo -DTEST_NS=ON -DTEST_S=ON -DTFM_IRQ_TEST=ON > > […] > > CMake Error at > build_GNUARM_Relwithdebinfo/lib/ext/tfm_test_repo-src/app/CMakeLists.txt:17 > (tfm_toolchain_reload_compiler): > > Unknown CMake command "tfm_toolchain_reload_compiler". > > > > Looks like tf-tests commit c41f3a078713b17b5654851329d63bcc0672874b > introduced calls to tfm_toolchain_reload_compiler(), which I don’t see > declared anywhere. > > > > I can work around it by using a local checkout of tf-m-tests at HEAD~. > > > > 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 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. > -- > TF-M mailing list > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m >

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] cmake error

by David Hu

Hi Chris, Sorry for the build failure. A patch is merged into tf-m-tests but its peer ones in TF-M haven't been approved yet. I have temporarily reverted that tf-m-tests patch. Please have another try. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 1:54 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] cmake error I just fetched the latest master (1655ef5120e99c62782575d0a8b3707ebfc2148e), and I'm now getting a cmake error: $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Relwithdebinfo '-GUnix Makefiles' -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Relwithdebinfo -DTEST_NS=ON -DTEST_S=ON -DTFM_IRQ_TEST=ON [...] CMake Error at build_GNUARM_Relwithdebinfo/lib/ext/tfm_test_repo-src/app/CMakeLists.txt:17 (tfm_toolchain_reload_compiler): Unknown CMake command "tfm_toolchain_reload_compiler". Looks like tf-tests commit c41f3a078713b17b5654851329d63bcc0672874b introduced calls to tfm_toolchain_reload_compiler(), which I don't see declared anywhere. I can work around it by using a local checkout of tf-m-tests at HEAD~. 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.

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop Tomorrow

by Shebu Varghese Kuriakose

Hi All, Gentle reminder about the Mbed TLS workshop tomorrow (Tuesday, November 3rd) from 2 to 6pm GMT. See agenda and zoom link here - https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/mbed-tls-workshop/ Thanks, Shebu -----Original Appointment----- From: Trusted Firmware Public Meetings <linaro.org_havjv2figrh5egaiurb229pd8c(a)group.calendar.google.com> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 12:32 AM To: Trusted Firmware Public Meetings; Shebu Varghese Kuriakose; mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Don Harbin; psa-crypto(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Dave Rodgman Subject: Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop When: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 2:00 PM-6:00 PM (UTC+00:00) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London. Where: Zoom: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95315200315?pwd=ZDJGc1BZMHZLV29DTmpGUllmMjB1UT… You have been invited to the following event. Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop When Tue Nov 3, 2020 7am – 11am Mountain Standard Time - Phoenix Where Zoom: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95315200315?pwd=ZDJGc1BZMHZLV29DTmpGUllmMjB1UT… (map<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Zoom:+https:%2F%2Flinaro-org.zoom.us%2Fj…>) Calendar shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com> Who • Don Harbin - creator • shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com> • mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org> • psa-crypto(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:psa-crypto@lists.trustedfirmware.org> • dave.rodgman(a)arm.com<mailto:dave.rodgman@arm.com> more details »<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MWZkd…> Hi, Trustedfirmware.org community project would like to invite you to the Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop. The purpose of the workshop is to bring together the Mbed TLS community including maintainers, contributors and users to discuss * The future direction of the project and * Ways to improve community collaboration Here is the agenda for the workshop. Topic Time (in GMT) Welcome 2.00 - 2.10pm Constant-time code 2.10 – 2.30pm Processes - how does work get scheduled? 2.30 – 2.50pm PSA Crypto APIs 2.50 – 3.20pm PSA Crypto for Silicon Labs Wireless MCUs - Why, What, Where and When 3.20 – 3.50pm Break Roadmap, TLS1.3 Update 4.10 – 4.30pm Mbed TLS 3.0 Plans, Scope 4.30 – 5.00pm How do I contribute my first review and be an effective Mbed TLS reviewer 5.00 – 5.30pm Regards, Don Harbin Trusted Firmware Community Manager ==============Zoom details below:==================== Trusted Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop Time: Nov 3, 2020 02:00 PM Greenwich Mean Time Join Zoom Meeting https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95315200315?pwd=ZDJGc1BZMHZLV29DTmpGUllmMjB1UT…<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Flinaro-org.zoom.us%2Fj%2F9531520…> Meeting ID: 953 1520 0315 Passcode: 143755 One tap mobile +16699009128,,95315200315# US (San Jose) +12532158782,,95315200315# US (Tacoma) Dial by your location +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) 888 788 0099 US Toll-free 877 853 5247 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 953 1520 0315 Find your local number: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/u/apL3hgti4<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Flinaro-org.zoom.us%2Fu%2FapL3hgt…> Going (shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com>)? Yes<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=RESPOND&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MW…> - Maybe<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=RESPOND&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MW…> - No<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=RESPOND&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MW…> more options »<https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NHVvY2FxY2o4Njk3MWZkd…> Invitation from Google Calendar<https://www.google.com/calendar/> You are receiving this courtesy email at the account shebu.varghesekuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:shebu.varghesekuriakose@arm.com> 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 organizer and be added to the guest list, or invite others regardless of their own invitation status, or to modify your RSVP. Learn More<https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding>.

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

cmake error

by Christopher Brand

I just fetched the latest master (1655ef5120e99c62782575d0a8b3707ebfc2148e), and I'm now getting a cmake error: $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Relwithdebinfo '-GUnix Makefiles' -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Relwithdebinfo -DTEST_NS=ON -DTEST_S=ON -DTFM_IRQ_TEST=ON [...] CMake Error at build_GNUARM_Relwithdebinfo/lib/ext/tfm_test_repo-src/app/CMakeLists.txt:17 (tfm_toolchain_reload_compiler): Unknown CMake command "tfm_toolchain_reload_compiler". Looks like tf-tests commit c41f3a078713b17b5654851329d63bcc0672874b introduced calls to tfm_toolchain_reload_compiler(), which I don't see declared anywhere. I can work around it by using a local checkout of tf-m-tests at HEAD~. 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.

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2

by Anton Komlev

Hi All, This is a reminder and heads up that TF-Mv1.2 release is planned for the end of November and TF-M code repository is aimed for freeze on Nov 4th (Wed), tagged by TF-Mv1.2-RC1 for testing. Availability of the tag will be notified via this mailing list. Thanks, Anton

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Integrating a different RTOS in tf-m-test

by Antonio Ken IANNILLO

Hi all, I wanted to use some other RTOS in the NS side while testing tf-m. Is there a simple way to use the Zephyr kernel or FreeRTOS in the tf-m-test (-DTEST_S=ON, -DTEST_NS=ON) instead of the default RTX? Best, -- Antonio Ken Iannillo Research Scientist – SEDAN group SnT – Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust UNIVERSITÉ DU LUXEMBOURG CAMPUS KIRCHBERG 29, avenue John F. Kennedy L-1855 Luxembourg Kirchberg T +352 46 66 44 9660 Join the conversation News | Twitter | Linkedin www.uni.lu/snt

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging

by Kevin Peng

Hi all, As the isolation level 3 PoC targets for AN521 and MUSCA_B1 only at the first stage, two level-3-specific linker script files are created for these two platforms. And the common linker scripts are not changed now. This would avoid affecting the platforms who do not support isolation level 3 with a big changed linker script. The patch for specific linker scripts can be found here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6717 Best Regards, Kevin From: Kevin Peng Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 5:27 PM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Subject: RE: Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi all, We've finished the PoC of isolation level 3 along with the new TFM HAL on the feature branch. And now we are migrating the patches to master branch by cherry-picking, squashing and refining. Here are the several topics ongoing parallel: * Linker script changes for isolation L3<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22linker_script_isolation%22+(s…> * Isolation HAL API<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22isolation_api_implementation%…> * SPM log<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22SPM_LOG%22+(status:open%20OR%…> * SP log<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22tfm_sp_log%22+(status:open%20…> And the HAL API docs: * Docs: Design of the TF-M isolation HAL<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/4829> More patches will be coming soon, will keep you update-to-date. Please help on reviews, thanks. Best Regards, Kevin 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 9, 2020 3:21 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] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging 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

4 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Upgrade crypto to mbedtls-2.24 tag

by Soby Mathew

Hi Everyone This is a heads to notify that we have some patches to upgrade to mbedtls-2.24 tag and we hope to merge them today. The patches can be found here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22mbedtls-2.24%22+(status:open%… Please be aware that there is a change in tf-m-tests as well which means that if the build system is setup to download latest master of tf-m-tests, you need to update TF-M to latest master as well for the build to succeed. This is not ideal workflow, but we are thinking about some system to avoid this kind of problems. Best Regards Soby Mathew

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform

by Soby Mathew

An update on this: The platform has been deprecated and is scheduled for removal from upstream after TFvMv1.2 release. Patches to warn about deprecation of this platform have been merged https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6516 Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Soby Mathew via TF-M Sent: 17 August 2020 15:12 To: TF-M mailing list <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> 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

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] [RFC] TF-M Documentation Contribution Format

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi, I think this effort should be done together with other tf.org projects using the same technology (Sphinx). Can you pls sync up with the TF-A team? Related to the details: * I suggest referring to the RTD style guide [1] instead of Python. The text is much smaller, does not cover topics we don’t need and your points 1-5 are aligned. Point 6 is conflicting as RTD allows 6 levels. * I disagree on 11. “A drawing is worth 1e3 words”, and hiding these at the end is not a good practice. * 12: do we really need this? How often are people doing such things? * 13 is ok 😊 * 14: might be too strict. What if a term is over used and may have a different meaning is some sections (i.e. platform, host, etc...). [1] https://documentation-style-guide-sphinx.readthedocs.io/en/latest/style-gui… /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Minos Galanakis via TF-M Sent: 30 June 2020 16:23 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] [RFC] TF-M Documentation Contribution Format Hi, As the project matures, and the community grows, I would like to revive an old discussion and suggest that we set some guidelines for contributing to the project's documentation. I would like to propose that we establish a minimal sub-set of rules, based on the official Python guidelines<https://devguide.python.org/documenting/#style-guide> which is the most widely used notation. This offers compatibility with existing tools for proofing and producing said documentation. The following rules should be considered: 1. H1 document title headers should be expressed by # with over-line (rows on top and bottom) of the text 2. Only ONE H1 header should allowed per document, ideally placed on top of the page. 3. H2 headers should be expressed by * with over-line 4. H2 header's text should be UNIQUE in per document basis 5. H3 headers should be expressed by a row of '=' 6. H4 headers should be expressed by a row of '-' 7. H3 and H4 headers have no limitation about naming. They can have similar names on the same document, as long as they have different parents. 8. H5 headers should be expressed by a row of '^' 9. H5 headers will be rendered in document body but not in menus on the navigation bar. 10. Do not use more than 5 level of heading 11. When writing guide, which are expected to be able to be readable by command line tools, it would be best practice to add long complicated tables, and UML diagrams in the bottom of the page and using internal references(auto-label). Please refer to the `tfm_sw_requirement.rst<https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/docs/getti…>` as an example 12. No special formatting should be allowed in Headers ( code, underline, strike-through etc ) 13. Long URLs and external references should be placed at the bottom of the page and referenced in the body of the document 14. New introduced terms and abbreviations should be added to Glossary and directly linked by the `:term:` notation across all documents using it. When something new, which is not covered is required, the rule should be first to follow the any reference to of an existing document, and the Python Documentation rules otherwise. Please let me know if you have any questions/objection or proposals or new rules you would like to consider. Any feedback is more than welcome. Minos

4 years, 6 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call – October 29

by Tamas Ban

Hi Anton, I would like to give an overview about the code sharing feature. Tamas From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Shawn Shan via TF-M Sent: 2020. október 26., hétfő 3:30 To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call – October 29 Hi Anton, I would like to briefly introduce the update of TF-M log system, about 20 minutes. Best regards, Shawn 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: Friday, October 23, 2020 5:56 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] TF-M Technical Forum call – October 29 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, October 29 (for 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

4 years, 6 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging

by Ken Liu

Hi, Reminder the isolation design document which will be merged before code freeze, too: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/4730 Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 5:32 PM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Another topic added: New isolation implementation<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22isolation-implement%22+(statu…> based on the isolation APIs. We are opening for new review comments before the end of October to catch the TF-M v1.2 release code freeze. Best Regards, Kevin From: Kevin Peng Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 5:27 PM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Subject: RE: Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi all, We've finished the PoC of isolation level 3 along with the new TFM HAL on the feature branch. And now we are migrating the patches to master branch by cherry-picking, squashing and refining. Here are the several topics ongoing parallel: * Linker script changes for isolation L3<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22linker_script_isolation%22+(s…> * Isolation HAL API<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22isolation_api_implementation%…> * SPM log<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22SPM_LOG%22+(status:open%20OR%…> * SP log<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22tfm_sp_log%22+(status:open%20…> And the HAL API docs: * Docs: Design of the TF-M isolation HAL<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/4829> More patches will be coming soon, will keep you update-to-date. Please help on reviews, thanks. Best Regards, Kevin 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 9, 2020 3:21 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] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging 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

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call – October 29

by Shawn Shan

Hi Anton, I would like to briefly introduce the update of TF-M log system, about 20 minutes. Best regards, Shawn From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 5:56 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call – October 29 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, October 29 (for 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

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Invitation: TF-M Tech forum @ Every 4 weeks from 8am to 9am on Thursday from Thu Oct 29 to Fri Mar 26, 2021 (MST) (tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org)

by Don Harbin

You have been invited to the following event. Title: 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/==… Info====Trusted Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.Topic: TF-M Tech forum - US Time Zone FriendlyTime: Oct 29, 2020 03:00 PM Greenwich Mean Time        Every 4 weeks on Thu, until Mar 18, 2021, 6 occurrence(s)        Oct 29, 2020 03:00 PM        Nov 26, 2020 03:00 PM        Dec 24, 2020 03:00 PM        Jan 21, 2021 03:00 PM        Feb 18, 2021 03:00 PM        Mar 18, 2021 03:00 PMPlease download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your calendar system.Weekly: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/meeting/tJEocOmvpz4tHtYu0Wvn2fOsG91u0kv_ECPd/ics… Zoom Meetinghttps://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95570795742?pwd=N21YWHJpUjZyS3Fzd0tkOG9hanpidz09Meeting ID: 955 7079 5742Passcode: 177658One tap mobile+12532158782,,95570795742# US (Tacoma)+13462487799,,95570795742# US (Houston)Dial by your location        +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)        +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)        +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)        +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)        877 853 5247 US Toll-free        888 788 0099 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 955 7079 5742Find your local number: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/u/abx3I7IoRq When: Every 4 weeks from 8am to 9am on Thursday from Thu Oct 29 to Fri Mar 26, 2021 Mountain Standard Time - Phoenix Where: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95570795742?pwd=N21YWHJpUjZyS3Fzd0tkOG9hanpidz… Calendar: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Who: * Don Harbin - creator * tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org * anton.komlev(a)arm.com Event details: https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NjQzcnZwcmEwNnV2cGoxN… 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 organizer and be added to the guest list, or invite others regardless of their own invitation status, or to modify your RSVP. Learn more at https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Invitation: TF-M Tech forum @ Every 4 weeks from 12am to 1am on Thursday from Thu Nov 12 to Fri May 28, 2021 (MST) (tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org)

by Don Harbin

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/==…Topic: TF-M Tech forum - Asia Time Zone FriendlyTime: Nov 12, 2020 07:00 AM Greenwich Mean Time        Every 4 weeks on Thu, until Mar 4, 2021, 5 occurrence(s)        Nov 12, 2020 07:00 AM        Dec 10, 2020 07:00 AM        Jan 7, 2021 07:00 AM        Feb 4, 2021 07:00 AM        Mar 4, 2021 07:00 AMPlease download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your calendar system.Weekly: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/meeting/tJYodOyvpz8jGNEc_1ykVap8Zg6oTLqZZSeJ/ics… Zoom Meetinghttps://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/92535794925?pwd=TTl0cmo4R2hTNm8wcHo1M3ZKdjlnUT09Meeting ID: 925 3579 4925Passcode: 414410One tap mobile+12532158782,,92535794925# US (Tacoma)+13462487799,,92535794925# US (Houston)Dial by your location        +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)        +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)        +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)        +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)        888 788 0099 US Toll-free        877 853 5247 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 925 3579 4925Find your local number: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/u/aesS64I7GW When: Every 4 weeks from 12am to 1am on Thursday from Thu Nov 12 to Fri May 28, 2021 Mountain Standard Time - Phoenix Where: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/92535794925?pwd=TTl0cmo4R2hTNm8wcHo1M3ZKdjlnUT… Calendar: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Who: * Don Harbin - creator * tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org * anton.komlev(a)arm.com Event details: https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NTAyYXB1M2xsYzJ2MzU3M… 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 organizer and be added to the guest list, or invite others regardless of their own invitation status, or to modify your RSVP. Learn more at https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

TF-M Technical Forum call – October 29

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, October 29 (for 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

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging

by Kevin Peng

Hi all, We've finished the PoC of isolation level 3 along with the new TFM HAL on the feature branch. And now we are migrating the patches to master branch by cherry-picking, squashing and refining. Here are the several topics ongoing parallel: * Linker script changes for isolation L3<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22linker_script_isolation%22+(s…> * Isolation HAL API<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22isolation_api_implementation%…> * SPM log<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22SPM_LOG%22+(status:open%20OR%…> * SP log<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22tfm_sp_log%22+(status:open%20…> And the HAL API docs: * Docs: Design of the TF-M isolation HAL<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/4829> More patches will be coming soon, will keep you update-to-date. Please help on reviews, thanks. Best Regards, Kevin From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:21 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging 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

4 years, 6 months

1
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging

by Ken Liu

Hi, Thank Tamas for the scenario, this is a good example. There were some queries and initial investigations before, which shows that some users want to protect the implementation of their services, and check if there are mechanisms to help on that. I think isolation level 3 is applicable to this scenario. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Tamas Ban via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 7:26 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi Andrej, the following scenario comes to my mind: * There is a product where secure services from different vendors are merged together and these are together make up the ARoT code. * There is a vendor who has a novel algorithm what he wants to protect against reverse engineering. * Image is delivered to the device in encrypted format. But on the device it is decrypted when moved to primary slot. * This secure partition needs the L3 isolation to be hidden from the other secure services within ARoT code. Tamas 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: 2020. október 21., szerda 11:53 To: Kevin Peng <Kevin.Peng(a)arm.com<mailto:Kevin.Peng@arm.com>> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi Kevin, Do you know any real (not academic) MCU application where L3 isolation is required? People ask, but I have nothing to tell. Even for L2 is difficult to find something, for most of cases L1 is enough. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:27 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi all, We've finished the PoC of isolation level 3 along with the new TFM HAL on the feature branch. And now we are migrating the patches to master branch by cherry-picking, squashing and refining. Here are the several topics ongoing parallel: * Linker script changes for isolation L3<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * Isolation HAL API<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * SPM log<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * SP log<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> And the HAL API docs: * Docs: Design of the TF-M isolation HAL<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> More patches will be coming soon, will keep you update-to-date. Please help on reviews, thanks. Best Regards, Kevin 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 9, 2020 3:21 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] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging 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

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging

by Tamas Ban

Hi Andrej, the following scenario comes to my mind: * There is a product where secure services from different vendors are merged together and these are together make up the ARoT code. * There is a vendor who has a novel algorithm what he wants to protect against reverse engineering. * Image is delivered to the device in encrypted format. But on the device it is decrypted when moved to primary slot. * This secure partition needs the L3 isolation to be hidden from the other secure services within ARoT code. Tamas From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: 2020. október 21., szerda 11:53 To: Kevin Peng <Kevin.Peng(a)arm.com> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi Kevin, Do you know any real (not academic) MCU application where L3 isolation is required? People ask, but I have nothing to tell. Even for L2 is difficult to find something, for most of cases L1 is enough. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:27 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi all, We've finished the PoC of isolation level 3 along with the new TFM HAL on the feature branch. And now we are migrating the patches to master branch by cherry-picking, squashing and refining. Here are the several topics ongoing parallel: * Linker script changes for isolation L3<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * Isolation HAL API<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * SPM log<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * SP log<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> And the HAL API docs: * Docs: Design of the TF-M isolation HAL<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> More patches will be coming soon, will keep you update-to-date. Please help on reviews, thanks. Best Regards, Kevin 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 9, 2020 3:21 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] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging 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

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging

by Andrej Butok

Hi Kevin, Do you know any real (not academic) MCU application where L3 isolation is required? People ask, but I have nothing to tell. Even for L2 is difficult to find something, for most of cases L1 is enough. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:27 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi all, We've finished the PoC of isolation level 3 along with the new TFM HAL on the feature branch. And now we are migrating the patches to master branch by cherry-picking, squashing and refining. Here are the several topics ongoing parallel: * Linker script changes for isolation L3<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * Isolation HAL API<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * SPM log<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * SP log<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> And the HAL API docs: * Docs: Design of the TF-M isolation HAL<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> More patches will be coming soon, will keep you update-to-date. Please help on reviews, thanks. Best Regards, Kevin 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 9, 2020 3:21 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] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging 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

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Another build issue

by David Hu

Hi Chris, I've raised a ticket https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/issues/239 on PSA Arch test github repo. It will be fixed by PSA Arch test team later. We will follow the fix status. Thanks again for reporting this issue. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David Hu via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:05 AM To: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Another build issue Hi Chris, I agree with you. It looks like PSA arch test doesn't check the correct clone destination. According to https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/blob/master/api-tests/CMakeL…, PSA arch test checks whether psa_qcbor exists. However, the actual clone destination of psa_qcbor folder is under CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR as https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/blob/master/api-tests/CMakeL… sets. Therefore, I guess this issue will be triggered as long as CMake script execution is in the different directory as binary folder is. I changed the destination to ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/${PSA_TARGET_QCBOR} in check step and it looks like the issue is fixed. IMOO, the quick workaround is to entirely remove the build directory. I will discuss with Raef to determine a final solution. Thanks a lot for reporting this issue! Best regards, Hu Ziji 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: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:57 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] Another build issue This one is a failure when re-configuring the build (even though the configuration is the same): $ mkdir build_GNUARM_Release $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=INITIAL_ATTESTATION (lots of output - eventually succeeds) $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=INITIAL_ATTESTATION (less output, eventually fails) fatal: destination path 'psa_qcbor' already exists and is not an empty directory. CMake Error at build_GNUARM_Release/lib/ext/psa_arch_tests-src/api-tests/CMakeLists.txt:324 (message): git clone failed for https://github.com/laurencelundblade/QCBOR.git I suspect that this might be due to the PSA stuff, rather than TFM per se, but it manifests when building TFM... 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.

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Generated files location

by Andrej Butok

Hi Anton If it's not possible to avoid a file generation now, it's good to have pre-generated files for a most typical configuration (l2, IPC etc.). As I mentioned before, ideally to use TFM as a real component/framework without generation of any source code. BUT If you believe, this requirement breaks a TFM concept, just tell us. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:27 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Generated files location Hi Andrej, Essentially, do you mean to move the files back to code tree and synch them with templates manually as it was ? Cheers, Anton From: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com<mailto:andrey.butok@nxp.com>> Sent: 19 October 2020 16:15 To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: RE: Generated files location Hi Anton, Another option: 3. Avoid the mandatory on-the-fly generation. Try to make TFM a component/framework, which is configurable by compile & run time parameters. Thanks, Andrej 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: Monday, October 19, 2020 5:00 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] Generated files location Hi, Some source files in TF-M are templated and generated inside /<build_dir>/generated/ on the fly as a part of build process. This guaranty consistency between templates and generated but might make a trouble for IDE, where not all source files exist at the first run. I see 2 options for solution: 1. Explicitly generate those files via cmake as a part of IDE project creation (1 time action) 2. Relay on CMSIS Pack for IDE, where generated files must be presents Any alternative thoughts? Anton

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Generated files location

by Andrej Butok

Hi Anton, Another option: 3. Avoid the mandatory on-the-fly generation. Try to make TFM a component/framework, which is configurable by compile & run time parameters. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 5:00 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Generated files location Hi, Some source files in TF-M are templated and generated inside /<build_dir>/generated/ on the fly as a part of build process. This guaranty consistency between templates and generated but might make a trouble for IDE, where not all source files exist at the first run. I see 2 options for solution: 1. Explicitly generate those files via cmake as a part of IDE project creation (1 time action) 2. Relay on CMSIS Pack for IDE, where generated files must be presents Any alternative thoughts? Anton

4 years, 6 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Another build issue

by David Hu

Hi Chris, I agree with you. It looks like PSA arch test doesn't check the correct clone destination. According to https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/blob/master/api-tests/CMakeL…, PSA arch test checks whether psa_qcbor exists. However, the actual clone destination of psa_qcbor folder is under CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR as https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/blob/master/api-tests/CMakeL… sets. Therefore, I guess this issue will be triggered as long as CMake script execution is in the different directory as binary folder is. I changed the destination to ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/${PSA_TARGET_QCBOR} in check step and it looks like the issue is fixed. IMOO, the quick workaround is to entirely remove the build directory. I will discuss with Raef to determine a final solution. Thanks a lot for reporting this issue! Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:57 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Another build issue This one is a failure when re-configuring the build (even though the configuration is the same): $ mkdir build_GNUARM_Release $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=INITIAL_ATTESTATION (lots of output - eventually succeeds) $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=INITIAL_ATTESTATION (less output, eventually fails) fatal: destination path 'psa_qcbor' already exists and is not an empty directory. CMake Error at build_GNUARM_Release/lib/ext/psa_arch_tests-src/api-tests/CMakeLists.txt:324 (message): git clone failed for https://github.com/laurencelundblade/QCBOR.git I suspect that this might be due to the PSA stuff, rather than TFM per se, but it manifests when building TFM... 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.

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Another build issue

by Christopher Brand

This one is a failure when re-configuring the build (even though the configuration is the same): $ mkdir build_GNUARM_Release $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=INITIAL_ATTESTATION (lots of output - eventually succeeds) $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=INITIAL_ATTESTATION (less output, eventually fails) fatal: destination path 'psa_qcbor' already exists and is not an empty directory. CMake Error at build_GNUARM_Release/lib/ext/psa_arch_tests-src/api-tests/CMakeLists.txt:324 (message): git clone failed for https://github.com/laurencelundblade/QCBOR.git I suspect that this might be due to the PSA stuff, rather than TFM per se, but it manifests when building TFM... 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.

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Build failure

by Christopher Brand

Looks like that test is indeed not supported on PSoC64. The error message threw me because it says what the valid values are for -DTARGET (which does include one containing "psoc64"), but it doesn't tell me what -DTAREGT was actually set to. Chris From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 1:42 PM To: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Build failure 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. We definitely used to be able to at least build ConfigPsaApiTestIPC.cmake (and the level 2 version) for PSoC64 under the old build system. It looks like we've always done so with one of the other PSA test suites also selected, which doesn't seem to be an option with the new build system. Is there an example TEST_PSA_API=IPC build for another platform I can look at? Chris From: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Hu@arm.com>> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 11:10 PM To: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: RE: Build failure Hi Chris, Sorry for the trouble. May I know if the same configurations worked with the previous build system? I checked a previous version of PSoC 64 specifics and it didn't explicitly claim to support FF compliance tests. Could you please confirm it with Alamy? Best regards, Hu Ziji 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: Saturday, October 17, 2020 7:07 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] Build failure I'm experimenting with the new build system, and seeing an error. Looking at docs/getting_started/tfm_build_instruction.rst, it mentions that TEST_PSA_API=IPC is a valid option ("Firmware Framework test suite"). When I try to configure for that build, though, I get an error: $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release '-GUnix Makefiles' -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=IPC CMake Error at build_GNUARM_Release/lib/ext/psa_arch_tests-src/api-tests/CMakeLists.txt:119 (message): [PSA] : Error: Unspported value for -DTARGET=, supported targets are : common;tgt_dev_apis_stdc;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an521;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an524;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an539;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_a;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_b1;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_s1;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_psoc64;tgt_ff_tfm_an521;tgt_ff_tfm_musca_a;tgt_ff_tfm_musca_b1 I see the same error with and without "-DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=2". 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. 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.

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Build failure

by David Hu

Hi Chris, Sorry for the trouble. May I know if the same configurations worked with the previous build system? I checked a previous version of PSoC 64 specifics and it didn't explicitly claim to support FF compliance tests. Could you please confirm it with Alamy? Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 7:07 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Build failure I'm experimenting with the new build system, and seeing an error. Looking at docs/getting_started/tfm_build_instruction.rst, it mentions that TEST_PSA_API=IPC is a valid option ("Firmware Framework test suite"). When I try to configure for that build, though, I get an error: $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release '-GUnix Makefiles' -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=IPC CMake Error at build_GNUARM_Release/lib/ext/psa_arch_tests-src/api-tests/CMakeLists.txt:119 (message): [PSA] : Error: Unspported value for -DTARGET=, supported targets are : common;tgt_dev_apis_stdc;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an521;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an524;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an539;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_a;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_b1;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_s1;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_psoc64;tgt_ff_tfm_an521;tgt_ff_tfm_musca_a;tgt_ff_tfm_musca_b1 I see the same error with and without "-DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=2". 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.

4 years, 6 months

2
1
0 0

Generated files location

by Anton Komlev

Hi, Some source files in TF-M are templated and generated inside /<build_dir>/generated/ on the fly as a part of build process. This guaranty consistency between templates and generated but might make a trouble for IDE, where not all source files exist at the first run. I see 2 options for solution: 1. Explicitly generate those files via cmake as a part of IDE project creation (1 time action) 2. Relay on CMSIS Pack for IDE, where generated files must be presents Any alternative thoughts? Anton

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] New build system missing GNUARM_PREFIX support

by Raef Coles

Hi, yes apologies that seems to have been lost. I was doing my best to track changes in the original cmake but it seems this one got missed. Can I ask - for the vendor triplet compilers (arm-etc-eabi-gcc), is it a compiler that the vendor is developing? In the new buildsystem, it might make sense to create a new compiler toolchain file that is almost identical to the GNU one, which would allow the two compilers to diverge slightly (in command-line options etc) if necessary. Raef ________________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Kumar Gala via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 07 October 2020 17:26 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] New build system missing GNUARM_PREFIX support It looks like the GNUARM_PREFIX changes got dropped as part of the new build system. Can someone look at restoring those changes? - k -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 6 months

2
2
0 0

Build failure

by Christopher Brand

I'm experimenting with the new build system, and seeing an error. Looking at docs/getting_started/tfm_build_instruction.rst, it mentions that TEST_PSA_API=IPC is a valid option ("Firmware Framework test suite"). When I try to configure for that build, though, I get an error: $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release '-GUnix Makefiles' -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=IPC CMake Error at build_GNUARM_Release/lib/ext/psa_arch_tests-src/api-tests/CMakeLists.txt:119 (message): [PSA] : Error: Unspported value for -DTARGET=, supported targets are : common;tgt_dev_apis_stdc;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an521;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an524;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an539;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_a;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_b1;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_s1;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_psoc64;tgt_ff_tfm_an521;tgt_ff_tfm_musca_a;tgt_ff_tfm_musca_b1 I see the same error with and without "-DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=2". 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.

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Security vulnerability notice - Secure stack sealing

by Soby Mathew

Hi Everyone There is a new security vulnerability report for Secure software executing on Armv8-M processors that causes it to be vulnerable to attacks from the Non-secure state if the secure stacks are not sealed properly. More details about the vulnerability can be found here: https://developer.arm.com/support/arm-security-updates/armv8-m-stack-sealing Please find the security advisory specific to TF-M and patches that have been developed as per the TrustedFirmware.org security process[1] below : 1. TF-M Security advisory https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6455/1 2. Fix based on TF-Mv1.1 release has been uploaded as a new branch "TF-Mv1.1-stack-seal-mitigation" to the main repository. The branch can also be accessed here: https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/log/?h=TF-Mv1.1… 3. Fix based on the latest master is available here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22stack-seal-mitigation%22. Please let us know if you have any comments. Best Regards Soby Mathew [1] https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/security_center/repor…

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes

by Tamas Ban

Hi Raymond, Test case 240, 241 are known limitation of cc312 driver. It is published here https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T691 Tamas ________________________________ Feladó: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>, meghatalmazó: Raymond Ngun via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Elküldve: 2020. október 15., csütörtök 20:29 Címzett: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com>; Summer Qin <Summer.Qin(a)arm.com> Másolatot kap: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Tárgy: Re: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi Soby and Summer, Thank you for pointing me to the complete chain of patches. I didn’t notice. With this, PSoC64 behaves quite well without any buffer changes. In fact, the results look better than previously published AN521 results – what are the latest AN521 results? It looks like 250 and 251 now passes but failed in previous AN521 results. Again, this is for PSoC64 As for Musca-B1, it looks like it is better (CC312 enabled). 241/242 is still failing and 250 is failing (passes for PSoC64). Disabling CC312 will result in 241/242 passing Thank you, Ray From: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 8:01 AM To: Summer Qin <Summer.Qin(a)arm.com>; Raymond Ngun <Raymond.Ngun(a)cypress.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: RE: Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi Raymond, Some of the PSA Crypto tests require a larger buffer size and previously this was done within the build system. This size is required irrespective of IPC or Library mode. The new build system broke this buffer size configuration for API tests and the patch mentioned by Summer resolves that. Could you try with that and let us know ? Regarding Musca-B1, we switched to using Cryptocell as default for that platform recently. There are some limitations for the CC-312 with respect to some crypto APIs and I suspect the failures are related to this. I will create a ticket to look further into this. Meanwhile could you try whether you have failures if you disable CC-312 for Musca-B1 : diff --git a/platform/ext/target/musca_b1/config.cmake b/platform/ext/target/musca_b1/config.cmake index b343af36..47a2bfad 100644 --- a/platform/ext/target/musca_b1/config.cmake +++ b/platform/ext/target/musca_b1/config.cmake @@ -6,5 +6,5 @@ #------------------------------------------------------------------------------- set(PLATFORM_DUMMY_ATTEST_HAL FALSE CACHE BOOL "Use dummy boot hal implementation. Should not be used in production." FORCE) -set(CRYPTO_HW_ACCELERATOR ON CACHE BOOL "Whether to enable the crypto hardware accelerator on supported platforms" FORCE) +set(CRYPTO_HW_ACCELERATOR OFF CACHE BOOL "Whether to enable the crypto hardware accelerator on supported platforms" FORCE) set(TFM_CRYPTO_TEST_ALG_CFB OFF CACHE BOOL "Test CFB cryptography mode" FORCE) Best Regards Soby Mathew From: Summer Qin <Summer.Qin(a)arm.com<mailto:Summer.Qin@arm.com>> Sent: 15 October 2020 07:58 To: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com<mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com>>; Raymond Ngun <Raymond.Ngun(a)cypress.com<mailto:Raymond.Ngun@cypress.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi Raymond, Do you cherry-pick all the series patches (topic: sm/new_build_crypto<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22sm%252Fnew_build_crypto%22+(s…> ) or just only pick the one Soby provided? I testes on AN521, without all the series patches, 219, 241, 242, and 243 are failed. But when you cherry-pick all series patches, they can pass. And I think patch https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6251 already increase the size for CRYPTO_ENGINE_BUF_SIZE. Thanks, Summer ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> on behalf of Raymond Ngun via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:54 AM To: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com<mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi Soby, Thank you for that fix! It does indeed fix this particular issue when using IPC. On another note, I’ve been running Musca-B1 and the results differ from what you sent out in the past for AN521. Specifically, Musca-B1 fails 219, 241, 242, and 243. Is this something you can have a look at on the Musca-B1 side? With that said, I’ve been running on PSoC64 and I can reproduce the AN521 results. I needed the patch you provided below but I was still running into memory issues and I had to bump the following (both of them). #define TFM_CRYPTO_IOVEC_BUFFER_SIZE (8120) #define TFM_CRYPTO_ENGINE_BUF_SIZE (0x5040) /* >8KB for EC signing in attest */ If I do not bump these, I would see 239 to 244 fail. Might you have any comments on the larger size requirements for these? Possibly when running in IPC mode? Thank you, Ray From: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com<mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:52 AM To: Raymond Ngun <Raymond.Ngun(a)cypress.com<mailto:Raymond.Ngun@cypress.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: RE: Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi Raymond, After further analysis, it seems to me that having separate checks for Library mode and IPC mode is the easiest way to go. The current design was done in such a way that both Library and IPC mode can reuse the same crypto service API involving IOVECs. Any change to how the API is invoked from the tfm_crypto_call_sfn() will have ramifications for Library mode. I have done a patch with different checks for IPC and Library mode here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6432 . The patch relaxes the checks for IPC mode to allow empty buffers and hardens the checks for Library mode. Hopefully this should resolve the issue. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com<mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com>> Sent: 12 October 2020 17:17 To: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com<mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com>>; Raymond Ngun <Raymond.Ngun(a)cypress.com<mailto:Raymond.Ngun@cypress.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: RE: Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi Raymond, As you pointed out, the difference in this case basically boils down to how the 2 models handles empty buffers. In the library mode, the empty buffers are passed down to the target API whereas the IPC mode optimizes the empty buffer from the IOVEC by reducing the buffer length. This results in different error codes in the 2 modes. The sanity check of IOVEC in incoming sizes is needed and I less inclined to remove it or enhance it. The error code certainly seems to be one way to resolve this problem. The other option is to make the IPC mode IOVEC less aggressive in optimizing away zero buffers from IOVEC (Need more investigation) thus attaining parity with library mode. 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: 12 October 2020 11:50 To: Raymond Ngun <Raymond.Ngun(a)cypress.com<mailto:Raymond.Ngun@cypress.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi Raymond Thanks for the detailed report. This issue was reported here https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T822 previously but I didn’t get time to look into it further due to other priorities. Your analysis seems right and I will look further into this. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Raymond Ngun via TF-M Sent: 10 October 2020 00:59 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi all, I’m seeking some assistance in determining the correct fix for a difference in behavior between IPC and Library modes that cause the Crypto PSA Arch Tests to fail when using IPC. Specifically, I’ve been testing on a PSoC64 for IPC mode and Musca-B1 for Library mode. The problem I am encountering is related to this check in crypto (e.g. crypto_aead.c in secure_fw/partitions/crypto). if ( !((in_len == 2) || (in_len == 3)) || (out_len > 1)) { return PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED; } This is true for direct function call since in_len and out_len are sizes of in_vec[] and out_vec[]. However, in library mode, in_len and out_len is not based on the size of in_vec[] and out_vec[] but based on the contents. Specifically, out_len is determined via the following in tfm_crypto_call_sfn(). /* Check the number of out_vec filled */ while ((out_len > 0) && (msg->out_size[out_len - 1] == 0)) { out_len--; } >From the above, if out_size (which is passed in by the user) is 0, the resultant out_len will be 0. The out_len is passed into the crypto function and PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED is returned due to the check above. PSA, on the other hand, expects PSA_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED to be returned. Btw, in_len suffers from the same issue. I’m not sure if the check above is valid for IPC mode. I’ve removed the check temporarily to avoid the problem. However, if the check still makes sense, possibly it should return PSA_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED instead of PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED. Thank you. I look forward to comments. Ray 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.

4 years, 6 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes

by Summer Qin

Hi Raymond, Do you cherry-pick all the series patches (topic: sm/new_build_crypto<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22sm%252Fnew_build_crypto%22+(s…> ) or just only pick the one Soby provided? I testes on AN521, without all the series patches, 219, 241, 242, and 243 are failed. But when you cherry-pick all series patches, they can pass. And I think patch https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6251 already increase the size for CRYPTO_ENGINE_BUF_SIZE. Thanks, Summer ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Raymond Ngun via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:54 AM To: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi Soby, Thank you for that fix! It does indeed fix this particular issue when using IPC. On another note, I’ve been running Musca-B1 and the results differ from what you sent out in the past for AN521. Specifically, Musca-B1 fails 219, 241, 242, and 243. Is this something you can have a look at on the Musca-B1 side? With that said, I’ve been running on PSoC64 and I can reproduce the AN521 results. I needed the patch you provided below but I was still running into memory issues and I had to bump the following (both of them). #define TFM_CRYPTO_IOVEC_BUFFER_SIZE (8120) #define TFM_CRYPTO_ENGINE_BUF_SIZE (0x5040) /* >8KB for EC signing in attest */ If I do not bump these, I would see 239 to 244 fail. Might you have any comments on the larger size requirements for these? Possibly when running in IPC mode? Thank you, Ray From: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:52 AM To: Raymond Ngun <Raymond.Ngun(a)cypress.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: RE: Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi Raymond, After further analysis, it seems to me that having separate checks for Library mode and IPC mode is the easiest way to go. The current design was done in such a way that both Library and IPC mode can reuse the same crypto service API involving IOVECs. Any change to how the API is invoked from the tfm_crypto_call_sfn() will have ramifications for Library mode. I have done a patch with different checks for IPC and Library mode here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6432 . The patch relaxes the checks for IPC mode to allow empty buffers and hardens the checks for Library mode. Hopefully this should resolve the issue. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com<mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com>> Sent: 12 October 2020 17:17 To: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com<mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com>>; Raymond Ngun <Raymond.Ngun(a)cypress.com<mailto:Raymond.Ngun@cypress.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: RE: Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi Raymond, As you pointed out, the difference in this case basically boils down to how the 2 models handles empty buffers. In the library mode, the empty buffers are passed down to the target API whereas the IPC mode optimizes the empty buffer from the IOVEC by reducing the buffer length. This results in different error codes in the 2 modes. The sanity check of IOVEC in incoming sizes is needed and I less inclined to remove it or enhance it. The error code certainly seems to be one way to resolve this problem. The other option is to make the IPC mode IOVEC less aggressive in optimizing away zero buffers from IOVEC (Need more investigation) thus attaining parity with library mode. 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: 12 October 2020 11:50 To: Raymond Ngun <Raymond.Ngun(a)cypress.com<mailto:Raymond.Ngun@cypress.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi Raymond Thanks for the detailed report. This issue was reported here https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T822 previously but I didn’t get time to look into it further due to other priorities. Your analysis seems right and I will look further into this. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Raymond Ngun via TF-M Sent: 10 October 2020 00:59 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi all, I’m seeking some assistance in determining the correct fix for a difference in behavior between IPC and Library modes that cause the Crypto PSA Arch Tests to fail when using IPC. Specifically, I’ve been testing on a PSoC64 for IPC mode and Musca-B1 for Library mode. The problem I am encountering is related to this check in crypto (e.g. crypto_aead.c in secure_fw/partitions/crypto). if ( !((in_len == 2) || (in_len == 3)) || (out_len > 1)) { return PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED; } This is true for direct function call since in_len and out_len are sizes of in_vec[] and out_vec[]. However, in library mode, in_len and out_len is not based on the size of in_vec[] and out_vec[] but based on the contents. Specifically, out_len is determined via the following in tfm_crypto_call_sfn(). /* Check the number of out_vec filled */ while ((out_len > 0) && (msg->out_size[out_len - 1] == 0)) { out_len--; } >From the above, if out_size (which is passed in by the user) is 0, the resultant out_len will be 0. The out_len is passed into the crypto function and PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED is returned due to the check above. PSA, on the other hand, expects PSA_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED to be returned. Btw, in_len suffers from the same issue. I’m not sure if the check above is valid for IPC mode. I’ve removed the check temporarily to avoid the problem. However, if the check still makes sense, possibly it should return PSA_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED instead of PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED. Thank you. I look forward to comments. Ray 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.

4 years, 6 months

3
2
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example

by Raef Coles

Ah okay. This is the behavior we saw with the other VS generators, and why we added the check to make sure "Unix Makefiles" or "Ninja" was used. Because it sets the C compiler to MSVC, it won't correctly compile TFM (which currently only supports ARMClang, GCC, and IAR). While there are other symptoms, such as the issues with python etc, this is the main one. I'd advise to just use -G"Unix Makefiles" (or ninja) Raef ________________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Kevin Kilzer via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 14 October 2020 18:13 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example Hi, Raef, I can get past the CMSIS issue by dup’ing the GNU links. It now fails for lack of the correct Python. Using the -G option, CMakeCache.txt lists all the pythons in my system and the build completes: $ grep python cmake_build/CMakeCache.txt PYTHON_EXECUTABLE:FILEPATH=C:/Python/Python27/python.exe FIND_PACKAGE_MESSAGE_DETAILS_Python3:INTERNAL=[C:/Users/cXXXXX/AppData/Local/Programs/Python/Python38-32/python.exe][cfound components: Interpreter ][v3.8.5()] _Python3_EXECUTABLE:INTERNAL=C:/Users/cXXXXX/AppData/Local/Programs/Python/Python38-32/python.exe Without the -G option, the compiler is MSVC, and the cache has no entry for python at all. Building Custom Rule C:/Users/cXXXXX/Git/arm/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/cmake_build/lib/ext/mcuboot-subbuild/CMakeLists.txt Building Custom Rule C:/Users/cXXXXX/Git/arm/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/cmake_build/lib/ext/mcuboot-subbuild/CMakeLists.txt -- Could NOT find Python3 (missing: Python3_EXECUTABLE Interpreter) Reason given by package: Interpreter: Wrong major version for the interpreter "C:/Python/Python27/python.exe"

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes

by Soby Mathew

Hi Raymond, As you pointed out, the difference in this case basically boils down to how the 2 models handles empty buffers. In the library mode, the empty buffers are passed down to the target API whereas the IPC mode optimizes the empty buffer from the IOVEC by reducing the buffer length. This results in different error codes in the 2 modes. The sanity check of IOVEC in incoming sizes is needed and I less inclined to remove it or enhance it. The error code certainly seems to be one way to resolve this problem. The other option is to make the IPC mode IOVEC less aggressive in optimizing away zero buffers from IOVEC (Need more investigation) thus attaining parity with library mode. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Soby Mathew via TF-M Sent: 12 October 2020 11:50 To: Raymond Ngun <Raymond.Ngun(a)cypress.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi Raymond Thanks for the detailed report. This issue was reported here https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T822 previously but I didn't get time to look into it further due to other priorities. Your analysis seems right and I will look further into this. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Raymond Ngun via TF-M Sent: 10 October 2020 00:59 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi all, I'm seeking some assistance in determining the correct fix for a difference in behavior between IPC and Library modes that cause the Crypto PSA Arch Tests to fail when using IPC. Specifically, I've been testing on a PSoC64 for IPC mode and Musca-B1 for Library mode. The problem I am encountering is related to this check in crypto (e.g. crypto_aead.c in secure_fw/partitions/crypto). if ( !((in_len == 2) || (in_len == 3)) || (out_len > 1)) { return PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED; } This is true for direct function call since in_len and out_len are sizes of in_vec[] and out_vec[]. However, in library mode, in_len and out_len is not based on the size of in_vec[] and out_vec[] but based on the contents. Specifically, out_len is determined via the following in tfm_crypto_call_sfn(). /* Check the number of out_vec filled */ while ((out_len > 0) && (msg->out_size[out_len - 1] == 0)) { out_len--; } >From the above, if out_size (which is passed in by the user) is 0, the resultant out_len will be 0. The out_len is passed into the crypto function and PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED is returned due to the check above. PSA, on the other hand, expects PSA_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED to be returned. Btw, in_len suffers from the same issue. I'm not sure if the check above is valid for IPC mode. I've removed the check temporarily to avoid the problem. However, if the check still makes sense, possibly it should return PSA_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED instead of PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED. Thank you. I look forward to comments. Ray 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.

4 years, 6 months

2
2
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - October 15

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The agenda for the forum: 1. Interrupt handling in PSA FF-M v1.1 2. Ongoing open issues, discussed on the Forum 3. AOB See you, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 09 October 2020 11:11 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - October 15 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, October 15 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

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example

by Kevin.Kilzer＠microchip.com

Hi, Raef, I can get past the CMSIS issue by dup'ing the GNU links. It now fails for lack of the correct Python. Using the -G option, CMakeCache.txt lists all the pythons in my system and the build completes: $ grep python cmake_build/CMakeCache.txt PYTHON_EXECUTABLE:FILEPATH=C:/Python/Python27/python.exe FIND_PACKAGE_MESSAGE_DETAILS_Python3:INTERNAL=[C:/Users/cXXXXX/AppData/Local/Programs/Python/Python38-32/python.exe][cfound components: Interpreter ][v3.8.5()] _Python3_EXECUTABLE:INTERNAL=C:/Users/cXXXXX/AppData/Local/Programs/Python/Python38-32/python.exe Without the -G option, the compiler is MSVC, and the cache has no entry for python at all. Building Custom Rule C:/Users/cXXXXX/Git/arm/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/cmake_build/lib/ext/mcuboot-subbuild/CMakeLists.txt Building Custom Rule C:/Users/cXXXXX/Git/arm/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/cmake_build/lib/ext/mcuboot-subbuild/CMakeLists.txt -- Could NOT find Python3 (missing: Python3_EXECUTABLE Interpreter) Reason given by package: Interpreter: Wrong major version for the interpreter "C:/Python/Python27/python.exe"

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example

by Kevin.Kilzer＠microchip.com

Hi, Raef, The combination that worked was the most-recent commit and gnu tools (-G option). Using VS it fails at lib/ext/CMSIS_5/CMakeLists.txt:25 for lack of CMSIS RTX static libraries. ...this command worked.... $ cmake -S . -B cmake_build -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an521 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -G"Unix Makefiles" -- The C compiler identification is GNU 9.3.1 -- The ASM compiler identification is GNU -- Found assembler: C:/Program Files (x86)/GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain/9 2020-q2-update/bin/arm-none-eabi-gcc.exe -- Detecting C compiler ABI info -- Detecting C compiler ABI info - done -- Check for working C compiler: C:/Program Files (x86)/GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain/9 2020-q2-update/bin/arm-none-eabi-gcc.exe - skipped -- Detecting C compile features -- Detecting C compile features - done

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example

by Raef Coles

Thanks. I'm interested if you've managed to build TFM using the visual studio generator? That check was actually added because we had a problem with at least one of the visual studio generators (VS10) setting the C compiler to `MSVC`. If you've managed to get it to build with VS16, then we can look in to adding that as a known good generator. Raef ________________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Kevin Kilzer via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 13 October 2020 15:30 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example Hi, Raef, I added to the generator qualifier in CMakeLists.txt line 17. Since cmake is not my native language, I put in the full string, as you see. The string comes from the display of CMAKE_GENERATOR in the error message. if(NOT ${CMAKE_GENERATOR} STREQUAL "Unix Makefiles" AND NOT ${CMAKE_GENERATOR} STREQUAL "Visual Studio 16 2019" AND NOT ${CMAKE_GENERATOR} STREQUAL "Ninja") Message(FATAL_ERROR "Unsupported generator ${CMAKE_GENERATOR}. Hint: Try -G\"Unix Makefiles\"") endif()

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example

by Kevin.Kilzer＠microchip.com

Hi, I successfully built the project using commit a2ac1f92bae51941e527f5b57c9474819e2c9ca0. Thank you to all who helped. Kevin

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example

by Kevin.Kilzer＠microchip.com

Hi, Raef, I added to the generator qualifier in CMakeLists.txt line 17. Since cmake is not my native language, I put in the full string, as you see. The string comes from the display of CMAKE_GENERATOR in the error message. if(NOT ${CMAKE_GENERATOR} STREQUAL "Unix Makefiles" AND NOT ${CMAKE_GENERATOR} STREQUAL "Visual Studio 16 2019" AND NOT ${CMAKE_GENERATOR} STREQUAL "Ninja") Message(FATAL_ERROR "Unsupported generator ${CMAKE_GENERATOR}. Hint: Try -G\"Unix Makefiles\"") endif()

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example

by Raef Coles

Note that the aforementioned patch has now been merged - windows build should now be working again on master Raef ________________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Raef Coles via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 13 October 2020 10:24 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Kevin.Kilzer(a)microchip.com Subject: Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example Hi, I'm interested in the changes that you made to the validity checks, would you mind sending a patch / outlining what you had to change. The windows generator checks are still not working exactly as they should and I'd like to know what your experience was. For the build failure, I believe this might be related to an issue with the windows PSA file generation. We've got a patch in review for this at https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6386, can you test and see if that fixes the problem. Raef ________________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Kevin Kilzer via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 13 October 2020 00:20 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example Thanks for the notes. Since last week I’ve now: 1. downloaded today’s latest repo (12 October, commit 8bebd05745a8b27dccc6403f0215fa6e39de3bc1, and 2. added the VS compiler to the “valid” checks at CmakeLists.txt line 17. Using the -G option allows the make to complete (apparently), but the install script fails (in both GitBash and CMD). Thanks for any help. ========== -- Build files have been written to: C:/Users/cXXXXX/Git/arm/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/cmake_build cXXXXX@LT-cXXXXXA MINGW64 ~/Git/arm/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m (master) $ cmake --build cmake_build -- install tools/CMakeFiles/tfm_generated_files.dir/build.make:93: *** target pattern contains no '%'. Stop. CMakeFiles/Makefile2:944: recipe for target 'tools/CMakeFiles/tfm_generated_files.dir/all' failed make.exe[1]: *** [tools/CMakeFiles/tfm_generated_files.dir/all] Error 2 Makefile:148: recipe for target 'all' failed make.exe: *** [all] Error 2========== -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example

by Raef Coles

Hi, I'm interested in the changes that you made to the validity checks, would you mind sending a patch / outlining what you had to change. The windows generator checks are still not working exactly as they should and I'd like to know what your experience was. For the build failure, I believe this might be related to an issue with the windows PSA file generation. We've got a patch in review for this at https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6386, can you test and see if that fixes the problem. Raef ________________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Kevin Kilzer via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 13 October 2020 00:20 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example Thanks for the notes. Since last week I’ve now: 1. downloaded today’s latest repo (12 October, commit 8bebd05745a8b27dccc6403f0215fa6e39de3bc1, and 2. added the VS compiler to the “valid” checks at CmakeLists.txt line 17. Using the -G option allows the make to complete (apparently), but the install script fails (in both GitBash and CMD). Thanks for any help. ========== -- Build files have been written to: C:/Users/cXXXXX/Git/arm/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/cmake_build cXXXXX@LT-cXXXXXA MINGW64 ~/Git/arm/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m (master) $ cmake --build cmake_build -- install tools/CMakeFiles/tfm_generated_files.dir/build.make:93: *** target pattern contains no '%'. Stop. CMakeFiles/Makefile2:944: recipe for target 'tools/CMakeFiles/tfm_generated_files.dir/all' failed make.exe[1]: *** [tools/CMakeFiles/tfm_generated_files.dir/all] Error 2 Makefile:148: recipe for target 'all' failed make.exe: *** [all] Error 2==========

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Suggestion: external dependency enhancement

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi, While digging the clean issue brought up by Soby, I started wondering if external dependency handling would be better in a slightly different way. There is a lot of hack in the build system around including the psa-arch test project, mostly to work around cmake limitations on namespaces and symbol separation. A stronger barrier could eliminate the mess. In TS we use the following pattern (let's call it "Internal Project"): * External dependencies are fetched with fetch_content() * Right after the fetch, execute_process() is called to start the build of the component. So external component builds configuration time. * The project get's installed into a directory and the main project is using the installed content, possibly through find_package(). * Benefits: * This gives a stronger separation, elimination any name clash between the main project and the external dependency. Also global settings cannot collide like when a dependency sets CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE. * Faster main project build times, as external projects are only built once. * Makes it more "natural" to use an externally built binary for an external component. This might be handy from QA perspective if binary releases are going to happen. (If ever of course.) * Strong separation could allow using different version of the same tools for components. (i.e. main project is built with GCC, component with IAR.) * Drawbacks: * It is harder to develop the external component together with tf-m s tracking changes is more difficult. Might be a problem if debugging tf-m vs external component interaction. This should be rare and might be an acceptable issue. * It is unnatural to run builds configuration time in cmake world. * Configuration phase will take longer. * Since the build happens right where the external component is added (point A), cmake execution flow might need to be different to ensure all information needed to configure the external component is present at point A. * Since external component is built by a separated cmake run, tool detection happens separate. This means the same tools will be searched for multiple times. Initial cache files can be a workaround. This is very similar to how external projects work in cmake, but makes better integration possible. The main project can use information from the dependency as it's source and output files become available configuration time. In turn external project changes are harder to track. /George

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi, I tried to dig deeper into this, but the cmake command used by Soby fails for me. " [ 33%] Performing patch step for 'psa_arch_tests-populate' error: patch failed: api-tests/platform/targets/tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an521/nspe/pal_driver_intf.c:128 ... " It would be nice to understand why cmake fails to clean properly, but well, I cannot deep-dive due to the above. What I wanted to check is if https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.15/prop_tgt/ADDITIONAL_CLEAN_FILES.html could be used to get "make clean" remove the psa-arch test binary directory. But: * I am not sure which build directory is used. I have the feeling we use ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/psa_api_tests and not psa_arch_tests_BINARY_DIR, which would be build\lib\ext\psa_arch_tests-build. Strange. * ADDITIONAL_CLEAN_FILES was introduced in cmake v3.15 and if my memories are correct tf-m allows an older version if not using IAR. Soby: can you please test if ADDITIONAL_CLEAN_FILES works? This solution would give a more streamlined. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 12 October 2020 23:00 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Hi, Thanks Soby for sorting it out. Sounds like a right way to go and cleanall shall do that job. For me it looks like an exceptional case while the main scenario for a daily development shall be the one, described by Karl : downloaded dependencies explicitly specified by paths outside of TF-M tree via command line, or via project config file (suggested). And true, both cases shall be explicitly documented. Hope it helps, Anton 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: 12 October 2020 17:29 To: Gyorgy Szing <Gyorgy.Szing(a)arm.com<mailto:Gyorgy.Szing@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Thanks Karl, Gyorgy for your inputs. I agree with the principle that `BUILD` shall be only folder the cmake modifies. The trouble is, after a `make clean`, there are still artefacts from the previous configuration which affects the new build and gives the wrong output. Hence the suggestion to introduce a `cleanall` custom target which endeavours to clean the all the remnant config information from previous build and leave auto cloned dependant repositories untouched (or maybe print some status info). Does that sound like a good plan then ? Best Regards Soby Mathew 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: 12 October 2020 06:29 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] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Hi, I think the build directory is owned by cmake and the same rules shall apply to all files there. Also the only directory cmake does modify without the users consent shall be the build directory. As long as cmake is owning the external dependencies it is the responsibility of the build system to keep the dependencies in a healthy state and to ensure the correct version is built. To do this safely the "clean" operation, which is used to get out of a "non-operational" state, shall fix the dependencies too. So the correct operation (in my opinion) is to make the dependency download work in the following way: * If the dependency is already present at the target location, cmake shall use it as is. Possibly some status information should be printed (i.e. version number, if the git working copy is dirty etc...) * If not cmake shall do the fetch. This way if the user specify an external location (one not in the build directory), cmake will "export" the dependency when the first fetch is done, and do no modifications after. This gives us a well-defined act of handing over the responsibility of keeping the dependency clean. As far as I can see (was not digging into the details) this more or less matches how the current implementation works, and what is missing is more details in the documentation. /George 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: 10 October 2020 08:14 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com<mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Hi Soby, I met the same problem before, and I think your suggestions are helpful. There might be more check needed if the 'make clean' does not delete the auto cloned repos. Because the dependencies may update by a new TFM commit. The new build system supports to specify the patch of each dependency, which can avoid clone automatically to the build folder each time. Hope it can mitigate the inconvenient scenario. -DMBEDCRYPTO_PATH= -DTFM_TEST_REPO_PATH= -DMCUBOOT_PATH= -DPSA_ARCH_TESTS_PATH= There is an example from CI for build command: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/view/TF-M/job/tf-m-build-config/lastStableBu… cmake -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an519 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DTFM_PSA_API=True -DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=1 -DTEST_NS=False -DTEST_S=False -DTEST_PSA_API=OFF -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DCRYPTO_HW_ACCELERATOR_OTP_STATE=False -DBL2=False -DNS=False -DTFM_TEST_REPO_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../tf-m-tests -DMBEDCRYPTO_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../mbedtls -DPSA_ARCH_TESTS_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../psa-arch-tests -DMCUBOOT_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../mcuboot -DTFM_PROFILE= /home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m BR Karl ________________________________ 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 <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 8:40 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>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Hi, With the new build system, TF-M downloads all dependant repositories to the BUILD folder as part of CMAKE configuration. CMake does provide `make clean` target to clean the build and rebuild but this doesn't track any config changes between the builds. Previously, the CMake workflow was to delete all contents in the BUILD folder before re-configuring for a new build but now this means the developer has to re-download all the dependant git repositories before the project can be build again. This can be a slow and cumbersome process for developers. Deleting the CMakecache.txt doesn't seem to solve the problem either. The most obvious solution is to move the cloned repositories outside the BUILD/ folder , so we can follow the previous workflow of deleting the BUILD folder before re-build. The sample test sequence to reproduce the problem is given below: /* Build secure regressions test suite */ $ make clean; cmake .. -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an521 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DTEST_S=ON -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug; make install /* reconfigure and build PSA Crypto API test suite */ $ make clean; cmake .. -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an521 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DTEST_PSA_API=CRYPTO; make install Built binary is still for regression test suite. There are multiple suggestions to solve the problem, One is to move the clone repositories outside the BUILD/ folder, or introduce a build target like `make cleanall` which does the equivalent of rm -rf !(lib) within the BUILD folder (i.e the build target will remove all folders except the lib folder which has the cloned repositories). Please let us know of your suggestions on this. Best Regards Soby Mathew

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example

by Kevin.Kilzer＠microchip.com

Thanks for the notes. Since last week I've now: 1. downloaded today's latest repo (12 October, commit 8bebd05745a8b27dccc6403f0215fa6e39de3bc1, and 2. added the VS compiler to the "valid" checks at CmakeLists.txt line 17. Using the -G option allows the make to complete (apparently), but the install script fails (in both GitBash and CMD). Thanks for any help. ========== -- Build files have been written to: C:/Users/cXXXXX/Git/arm/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/cmake_build cXXXXX@LT-cXXXXXA MINGW64 ~/Git/arm/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m (master) $ cmake --build cmake_build -- install tools/CMakeFiles/tfm_generated_files.dir/build.make:93: *** target pattern contains no '%'. Stop. CMakeFiles/Makefile2:944: recipe for target 'tools/CMakeFiles/tfm_generated_files.dir/all' failed make.exe[1]: *** [tools/CMakeFiles/tfm_generated_files.dir/all] Error 2 Makefile:148: recipe for target 'all' failed make.exe: *** [all] Error 2==========

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes

by Anton Komlev

Hi, Thanks Soby for sorting it out. Sounds like a right way to go and cleanall shall do that job. For me it looks like an exceptional case while the main scenario for a daily development shall be the one, described by Karl : downloaded dependencies explicitly specified by paths outside of TF-M tree via command line, or via project config file (suggested). And true, both cases shall be explicitly documented. Hope it helps, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Soby Mathew via TF-M Sent: 12 October 2020 17:29 To: Gyorgy Szing <Gyorgy.Szing(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Thanks Karl, Gyorgy for your inputs. I agree with the principle that `BUILD` shall be only folder the cmake modifies. The trouble is, after a `make clean`, there are still artefacts from the previous configuration which affects the new build and gives the wrong output. Hence the suggestion to introduce a `cleanall` custom target which endeavours to clean the all the remnant config information from previous build and leave auto cloned dependant repositories untouched (or maybe print some status info). Does that sound like a good plan then ? Best Regards Soby Mathew 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: 12 October 2020 06:29 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] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Hi, I think the build directory is owned by cmake and the same rules shall apply to all files there. Also the only directory cmake does modify without the users consent shall be the build directory. As long as cmake is owning the external dependencies it is the responsibility of the build system to keep the dependencies in a healthy state and to ensure the correct version is built. To do this safely the "clean" operation, which is used to get out of a "non-operational" state, shall fix the dependencies too. So the correct operation (in my opinion) is to make the dependency download work in the following way: * If the dependency is already present at the target location, cmake shall use it as is. Possibly some status information should be printed (i.e. version number, if the git working copy is dirty etc...) * If not cmake shall do the fetch. This way if the user specify an external location (one not in the build directory), cmake will "export" the dependency when the first fetch is done, and do no modifications after. This gives us a well-defined act of handing over the responsibility of keeping the dependency clean. As far as I can see (was not digging into the details) this more or less matches how the current implementation works, and what is missing is more details in the documentation. /George 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: 10 October 2020 08:14 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com<mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Hi Soby, I met the same problem before, and I think your suggestions are helpful. There might be more check needed if the 'make clean' does not delete the auto cloned repos. Because the dependencies may update by a new TFM commit. The new build system supports to specify the patch of each dependency, which can avoid clone automatically to the build folder each time. Hope it can mitigate the inconvenient scenario. -DMBEDCRYPTO_PATH= -DTFM_TEST_REPO_PATH= -DMCUBOOT_PATH= -DPSA_ARCH_TESTS_PATH= There is an example from CI for build command: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/view/TF-M/job/tf-m-build-config/lastStableBu… cmake -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an519 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DTFM_PSA_API=True -DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=1 -DTEST_NS=False -DTEST_S=False -DTEST_PSA_API=OFF -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DCRYPTO_HW_ACCELERATOR_OTP_STATE=False -DBL2=False -DNS=False -DTFM_TEST_REPO_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../tf-m-tests -DMBEDCRYPTO_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../mbedtls -DPSA_ARCH_TESTS_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../psa-arch-tests -DMCUBOOT_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../mcuboot -DTFM_PROFILE= /home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m BR Karl ________________________________ 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 <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 8:40 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>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Hi, With the new build system, TF-M downloads all dependant repositories to the BUILD folder as part of CMAKE configuration. CMake does provide `make clean` target to clean the build and rebuild but this doesn't track any config changes between the builds. Previously, the CMake workflow was to delete all contents in the BUILD folder before re-configuring for a new build but now this means the developer has to re-download all the dependant git repositories before the project can be build again. This can be a slow and cumbersome process for developers. Deleting the CMakecache.txt doesn't seem to solve the problem either. The most obvious solution is to move the cloned repositories outside the BUILD/ folder , so we can follow the previous workflow of deleting the BUILD folder before re-build. The sample test sequence to reproduce the problem is given below: /* Build secure regressions test suite */ $ make clean; cmake .. -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an521 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DTEST_S=ON -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug; make install /* reconfigure and build PSA Crypto API test suite */ $ make clean; cmake .. -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an521 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DTEST_PSA_API=CRYPTO; make install Built binary is still for regression test suite. There are multiple suggestions to solve the problem, One is to move the clone repositories outside the BUILD/ folder, or introduce a build target like `make cleanall` which does the equivalent of rm -rf !(lib) within the BUILD folder (i.e the build target will remove all folders except the lib folder which has the cloned repositories). Please let us know of your suggestions on this. Best Regards Soby Mathew

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Following the TF-M build example

by Kevin.Kilzer＠microchip.com

Hi, Raef, I'm using commit 1cc7566275e8b046d5158d6e067d0fadf33bcd73. Thanks! Kevin

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes

by Soby Mathew

Thanks Karl, Gyorgy for your inputs. I agree with the principle that `BUILD` shall be only folder the cmake modifies. The trouble is, after a `make clean`, there are still artefacts from the previous configuration which affects the new build and gives the wrong output. Hence the suggestion to introduce a `cleanall` custom target which endeavours to clean the all the remnant config information from previous build and leave auto cloned dependant repositories untouched (or maybe print some status info). Does that sound like a good plan then ? Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: 12 October 2020 06:29 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Hi, I think the build directory is owned by cmake and the same rules shall apply to all files there. Also the only directory cmake does modify without the users consent shall be the build directory. As long as cmake is owning the external dependencies it is the responsibility of the build system to keep the dependencies in a healthy state and to ensure the correct version is built. To do this safely the "clean" operation, which is used to get out of a "non-operational" state, shall fix the dependencies too. So the correct operation (in my opinion) is to make the dependency download work in the following way: * If the dependency is already present at the target location, cmake shall use it as is. Possibly some status information should be printed (i.e. version number, if the git working copy is dirty etc...) * If not cmake shall do the fetch. This way if the user specify an external location (one not in the build directory), cmake will "export" the dependency when the first fetch is done, and do no modifications after. This gives us a well-defined act of handing over the responsibility of keeping the dependency clean. As far as I can see (was not digging into the details) this more or less matches how the current implementation works, and what is missing is more details in the documentation. /George 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: 10 October 2020 08:14 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com<mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Hi Soby, I met the same problem before, and I think your suggestions are helpful. There might be more check needed if the 'make clean' does not delete the auto cloned repos. Because the dependencies may update by a new TFM commit. The new build system supports to specify the patch of each dependency, which can avoid clone automatically to the build folder each time. Hope it can mitigate the inconvenient scenario. -DMBEDCRYPTO_PATH= -DTFM_TEST_REPO_PATH= -DMCUBOOT_PATH= -DPSA_ARCH_TESTS_PATH= There is an example from CI for build command: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/view/TF-M/job/tf-m-build-config/lastStableBu… cmake -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an519 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DTFM_PSA_API=True -DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=1 -DTEST_NS=False -DTEST_S=False -DTEST_PSA_API=OFF -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DCRYPTO_HW_ACCELERATOR_OTP_STATE=False -DBL2=False -DNS=False -DTFM_TEST_REPO_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../tf-m-tests -DMBEDCRYPTO_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../mbedtls -DPSA_ARCH_TESTS_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../psa-arch-tests -DMCUBOOT_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../mcuboot -DTFM_PROFILE= /home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m BR Karl ________________________________ 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 <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 8:40 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>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Hi, With the new build system, TF-M downloads all dependant repositories to the BUILD folder as part of CMAKE configuration. CMake does provide `make clean` target to clean the build and rebuild but this doesn't track any config changes between the builds. Previously, the CMake workflow was to delete all contents in the BUILD folder before re-configuring for a new build but now this means the developer has to re-download all the dependant git repositories before the project can be build again. This can be a slow and cumbersome process for developers. Deleting the CMakecache.txt doesn't seem to solve the problem either. The most obvious solution is to move the cloned repositories outside the BUILD/ folder , so we can follow the previous workflow of deleting the BUILD folder before re-build. The sample test sequence to reproduce the problem is given below: /* Build secure regressions test suite */ $ make clean; cmake .. -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an521 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DTEST_S=ON -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug; make install /* reconfigure and build PSA Crypto API test suite */ $ make clean; cmake .. -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an521 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DTEST_PSA_API=CRYPTO; make install Built binary is still for regression test suite. There are multiple suggestions to solve the problem, One is to move the clone repositories outside the BUILD/ folder, or introduce a build target like `make cleanall` which does the equivalent of rm -rf !(lib) within the BUILD folder (i.e the build target will remove all folders except the lib folder which has the cloned repositories). Please let us know of your suggestions on this. Best Regards Soby Mathew

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop on Nov. 3rd

by Shebu Varghese Kuriakose

Hi All, Trustedfirmware.org community project would like to invite you to the Mbed TLS Virtual Workshop on November 3rd (Tuesday) from 2pm to 6pm GMT. The purpose of the workshop is to bring together the Mbed TLS community including maintainers, contributors and users to discuss * The future direction of the project and * Ways to improve community collaboration The workshop will be hosted in Zoom open to all. The invitation with the zoom link will be send in the Mbed TLS, PSA Crypto* mailing lists in the coming days. Here are some of the proposed agenda topics. Please reply if there is anything else you would like us or you to present during the workshop that will be interesting to the community * Constant-time code * How to be an effective Mbed TLS reviewer * Processes - how does work get scheduled? * Roadmap, Mbed TLS3.0 * PSA Crypto APIs * How Do I contribute my first review. Thanks, Shebu (TrustedFirmware.org Co-Chair, Mbed TLS Technology Manager) * https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/mbed-tls https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/psa-crypto

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes

by Soby Mathew

Hi Raymond Thanks for the detailed report. This issue was reported here https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T822 previously but I didn't get time to look into it further due to other priorities. Your analysis seems right and I will look further into this. Best Regards Soby Mathew From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Raymond Ngun via TF-M Sent: 10 October 2020 00:59 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes Hi all, I'm seeking some assistance in determining the correct fix for a difference in behavior between IPC and Library modes that cause the Crypto PSA Arch Tests to fail when using IPC. Specifically, I've been testing on a PSoC64 for IPC mode and Musca-B1 for Library mode. The problem I am encountering is related to this check in crypto (e.g. crypto_aead.c in secure_fw/partitions/crypto). if ( !((in_len == 2) || (in_len == 3)) || (out_len > 1)) { return PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED; } This is true for direct function call since in_len and out_len are sizes of in_vec[] and out_vec[]. However, in library mode, in_len and out_len is not based on the size of in_vec[] and out_vec[] but based on the contents. Specifically, out_len is determined via the following in tfm_crypto_call_sfn(). /* Check the number of out_vec filled */ while ((out_len > 0) && (msg->out_size[out_len - 1] == 0)) { out_len--; } >From the above, if out_size (which is passed in by the user) is 0, the resultant out_len will be 0. The out_len is passed into the crypto function and PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED is returned due to the check above. PSA, on the other hand, expects PSA_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED to be returned. Btw, in_len suffers from the same issue. I'm not sure if the check above is valid for IPC mode. I've removed the check temporarily to avoid the problem. However, if the check still makes sense, possibly it should return PSA_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED instead of PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED. Thank you. I look forward to comments. Ray 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.

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Disabling IRQ test with new build system

by Raef Coles

Hi, There is a patch that should allow better configuration of the IRQ tests / other platform-related tests, as well as clarifying the documentation. https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/6350 https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tests/+/6351 Any reviews would be appreciated Raef ________________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of David Hu via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 12 October 2020 08:55 To: Christopher Brand; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd Subject: Re: [TF-M] Disabling IRQ test with new build system Hi Chris, Thanks a lot for reporting this. It looks like the IRQ test case is enabled on NS side as long as the Platform service is enabled. The IRQ test service in SPE is controlled by `TFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TEST`, which, however, is neither explicitly configured in CMake nor exported for manual configuration. Therefore IRQ test service is not enabled by default. Thus the IRQ test case will hang the execution and configuration of IRQ test in command line won’t take effect. I’ve been looking for the solution. Just need some time to sort out the dependencies of those test control flags in the new build system. 😊 Sorry for any inconvenience. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 4:32 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Disabling IRQ test with new build system Hi, The IRQ test part of the CORE_TEST is all conditioned on TFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TEST, and docs/reference/services/core_test_services_integration_guide.rst states that “A platform can skip IRQ handling test by setting ``TFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TEST`` to ``OFF`` in its cmake configuration file.”, but doing so doesn’t seem to actually work. I tried a number of options to the cmake command (including -DTFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TES=OFF, -U TFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TEST), too, but I can’t figure out how to avoid that test. 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.

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Disabling IRQ test with new build system

by David Hu

Hi Chris, Thanks a lot for reporting this. It looks like the IRQ test case is enabled on NS side as long as the Platform service is enabled. The IRQ test service in SPE is controlled by `TFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TEST`, which, however, is neither explicitly configured in CMake nor exported for manual configuration. Therefore IRQ test service is not enabled by default. Thus the IRQ test case will hang the execution and configuration of IRQ test in command line won’t take effect. I’ve been looking for the solution. Just need some time to sort out the dependencies of those test control flags in the new build system. 😊 Sorry for any inconvenience. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 4:32 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Disabling IRQ test with new build system Hi, The IRQ test part of the CORE_TEST is all conditioned on TFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TEST, and docs/reference/services/core_test_services_integration_guide.rst states that “A platform can skip IRQ handling test by setting ``TFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TEST`` to ``OFF`` in its cmake configuration file.”, but doing so doesn’t seem to actually work. I tried a number of options to the cmake command (including -DTFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TES=OFF, -U TFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TEST), too, but I can’t figure out how to avoid that test. 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.

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi, I think the build directory is owned by cmake and the same rules shall apply to all files there. Also the only directory cmake does modify without the users consent shall be the build directory. As long as cmake is owning the external dependencies it is the responsibility of the build system to keep the dependencies in a healthy state and to ensure the correct version is built. To do this safely the "clean" operation, which is used to get out of a "non-operational" state, shall fix the dependencies too. So the correct operation (in my opinion) is to make the dependency download work in the following way: * If the dependency is already present at the target location, cmake shall use it as is. Possibly some status information should be printed (i.e. version number, if the git working copy is dirty etc...) * If not cmake shall do the fetch. This way if the user specify an external location (one not in the build directory), cmake will "export" the dependency when the first fetch is done, and do no modifications after. This gives us a well-defined act of handing over the responsibility of keeping the dependency clean. As far as I can see (was not digging into the details) this more or less matches how the current implementation works, and what is missing is more details in the documentation. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Karl Zhang via TF-M Sent: 10 October 2020 08:14 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Hi Soby, I met the same problem before, and I think your suggestions are helpful. There might be more check needed if the 'make clean' does not delete the auto cloned repos. Because the dependencies may update by a new TFM commit. The new build system supports to specify the patch of each dependency, which can avoid clone automatically to the build folder each time. Hope it can mitigate the inconvenient scenario. -DMBEDCRYPTO_PATH= -DTFM_TEST_REPO_PATH= -DMCUBOOT_PATH= -DPSA_ARCH_TESTS_PATH= There is an example from CI for build command: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/view/TF-M/job/tf-m-build-config/lastStableBu… cmake -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an519 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DTFM_PSA_API=True -DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=1 -DTEST_NS=False -DTEST_S=False -DTEST_PSA_API=OFF -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DCRYPTO_HW_ACCELERATOR_OTP_STATE=False -DBL2=False -DNS=False -DTFM_TEST_REPO_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../tf-m-tests -DMBEDCRYPTO_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../mbedtls -DPSA_ARCH_TESTS_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../psa-arch-tests -DMCUBOOT_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../mcuboot -DTFM_PROFILE= /home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m BR Karl ________________________________ 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 <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 8:40 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>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Hi, With the new build system, TF-M downloads all dependant repositories to the BUILD folder as part of CMAKE configuration. CMake does provide `make clean` target to clean the build and rebuild but this doesn't track any config changes between the builds. Previously, the CMake workflow was to delete all contents in the BUILD folder before re-configuring for a new build but now this means the developer has to re-download all the dependant git repositories before the project can be build again. This can be a slow and cumbersome process for developers. Deleting the CMakecache.txt doesn't seem to solve the problem either. The most obvious solution is to move the cloned repositories outside the BUILD/ folder , so we can follow the previous workflow of deleting the BUILD folder before re-build. The sample test sequence to reproduce the problem is given below: /* Build secure regressions test suite */ $ make clean; cmake .. -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an521 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DTEST_S=ON -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug; make install /* reconfigure and build PSA Crypto API test suite */ $ make clean; cmake .. -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an521 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DTEST_PSA_API=CRYPTO; make install Built binary is still for regression test suite. There are multiple suggestions to solve the problem, One is to move the clone repositories outside the BUILD/ folder, or introduce a build target like `make cleanall` which does the equivalent of rm -rf !(lib) within the BUILD folder (i.e the build target will remove all folders except the lib folder which has the cloned repositories). Please let us know of your suggestions on this. Best Regards Soby Mathew

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes

by Karl Zhang

Hi Soby, I met the same problem before, and I think your suggestions are helpful. There might be more check needed if the 'make clean' does not delete the auto cloned repos. Because the dependencies may update by a new TFM commit. The new build system supports to specify the patch of each dependency, which can avoid clone automatically to the build folder each time. Hope it can mitigate the inconvenient scenario. -DMBEDCRYPTO_PATH= -DTFM_TEST_REPO_PATH= -DMCUBOOT_PATH= -DPSA_ARCH_TESTS_PATH= There is an example from CI for build command: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/view/TF-M/job/tf-m-build-config/lastStableBu… cmake -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an519 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DTFM_PSA_API=True -DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=1 -DTEST_NS=False -DTEST_S=False -DTEST_PSA_API=OFF -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DCRYPTO_HW_ACCELERATOR_OTP_STATE=False -DBL2=False -DNS=False -DTFM_TEST_REPO_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../tf-m-tests -DMBEDCRYPTO_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../mbedtls -DPSA_ARCH_TESTS_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../psa-arch-tests -DMCUBOOT_PATH=/home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m/../mcuboot -DTFM_PROFILE= /home/buildslave/workspace/tf-m-build-config/trusted-firmware-m BR Karl ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Soby Mathew via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 8:40 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] New TF-M Build doesn't track config changes Hi, With the new build system, TF-M downloads all dependant repositories to the BUILD folder as part of CMAKE configuration. CMake does provide `make clean` target to clean the build and rebuild but this doesn't track any config changes between the builds. Previously, the CMake workflow was to delete all contents in the BUILD folder before re-configuring for a new build but now this means the developer has to re-download all the dependant git repositories before the project can be build again. This can be a slow and cumbersome process for developers. Deleting the CMakecache.txt doesn't seem to solve the problem either. The most obvious solution is to move the cloned repositories outside the BUILD/ folder , so we can follow the previous workflow of deleting the BUILD folder before re-build. The sample test sequence to reproduce the problem is given below: /* Build secure regressions test suite */ $ make clean; cmake .. -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an521 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DTEST_S=ON -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug; make install /* reconfigure and build PSA Crypto API test suite */ $ make clean; cmake .. -DTFM_PLATFORM=mps2/an521 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DTEST_PSA_API=CRYPTO; make install Built binary is still for regression test suite. There are multiple suggestions to solve the problem, One is to move the clone repositories outside the BUILD/ folder, or introduce a build target like `make cleanall` which does the equivalent of rm -rf !(lib) within the BUILD folder (i.e the build target will remove all folders except the lib folder which has the cloned repositories). Please let us know of your suggestions on this. Best Regards Soby Mathew

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Behavior difference in Crypto IPC vs Library modes

by Raymond Ngun

Hi all, I'm seeking some assistance in determining the correct fix for a difference in behavior between IPC and Library modes that cause the Crypto PSA Arch Tests to fail when using IPC. Specifically, I've been testing on a PSoC64 for IPC mode and Musca-B1 for Library mode. The problem I am encountering is related to this check in crypto (e.g. crypto_aead.c in secure_fw/partitions/crypto). if ( !((in_len == 2) || (in_len == 3)) || (out_len > 1)) { return PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED; } This is true for direct function call since in_len and out_len are sizes of in_vec[] and out_vec[]. However, in library mode, in_len and out_len is not based on the size of in_vec[] and out_vec[] but based on the contents. Specifically, out_len is determined via the following in tfm_crypto_call_sfn(). /* Check the number of out_vec filled */ while ((out_len > 0) && (msg->out_size[out_len - 1] == 0)) { out_len--; } >From the above, if out_size (which is passed in by the user) is 0, the resultant out_len will be 0. The out_len is passed into the crypto function and PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED is returned due to the check above. PSA, on the other hand, expects PSA_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED to be returned. Btw, in_len suffers from the same issue. I'm not sure if the check above is valid for IPC mode. I've removed the check temporarily to avoid the problem. However, if the check still makes sense, possibly it should return PSA_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED instead of PSA_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED. Thank you. I look forward to comments. Ray 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.

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Disabling IRQ test with new build system

by Christopher Brand

Hi, The IRQ test part of the CORE_TEST is all conditioned on TFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TEST, and docs/reference/services/core_test_services_integration_guide.rst states that "A platform can skip IRQ handling test by setting ``TFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TEST`` to ``OFF`` in its cmake configuration file.", but doing so doesn't seem to actually work. I tried a number of options to the cmake command (including -DTFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TES=OFF, -U TFM_ENABLE_IRQ_TEST), too, but I can't figure out how to avoid that test. 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.

4 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M