- TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

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

by Soby Mathew

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch

by Soby Mathew

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

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

by David Hu

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

5 years, 2 months

2
1
0 0

Simpler integration into other projects

by Rønningstad, Øyvind

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

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

by Ken Liu

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

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

by Robert Rostohar

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch

by Karl Zhang

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

[RFC] The code review guideline

by Ken Liu

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

psa_key_id_t type mismatch --- HardFault

by Alamy Liu

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

5 years, 2 months

1
1
0 0

CI Checkpatch

by Christopher Brand

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

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

by Jamie Fox

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

ST platforms building broken

by Kevin Peng

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

TF-M Technical Forum call - September 3

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, September 3 at 15:00-16:00 UTC (US time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Recording and slides of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/ Best regards, Anton Komlev

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

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

by David Hu

Hi Thomas, Sorry if I misunderstand your problem. Does it mean that diverse compilers require different core config flags? Best regards, Hu Ziji ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 7:39 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] New build system with IAR I've started looking at the new build system, and it looks like a nice improvement. I have a problem, that likely has a simple solution, although I'm not sure which. I've looked at the AN521 target, and the preload.cmake file is included very early from the root CMakeLists.txt The first line of preload.cmake is: --- set(CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR cortex-m33+nodsp) --- For IAR that line should be: --- set(CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR Cortex-M33.no_dsp) --- I need to discriminate between the toolchains already there, but I haven't figured out what the best way would be to do that. Not much is setup at this moment in the run. Ideas? Thomas -- Thomas Törnblom, Product Engineer IAR Systems AB Box 23051, Strandbodgatan 1 SE-750 23 Uppsala, SWEDEN Mobile: +46 76 180 17 80 Fax: +46 18 16 78 01 E-mail: thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com<mailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com> Website: www.iar.com<http://www.iar.com> Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems<http://www.twitter.com/iarsystems>

5 years, 2 months

2
2
0 0

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

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi, CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR identifies the CPU the build targets. If this string is passed to the compiler as a command line flag, that seems to be an error to me. Also I have the feeling that this value should be more hardware specific. A Cortex-M33 CPU has many configuration options to be set when it is put into a system, and different set of options may need different compiler switches. All this complexity might not be needed in the build-system and it could be better to hide it. I suggest naming the CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR after the "chip" (i.e. AN521). The compiler specific files can map this name to the appropriate set of compiler options, and the compiler will set the "feature test macros" described in [1]. Source code can use these macros to configure itself properly. In the build system only features having an effect on CMake files shall be visible. (I.e. if a feature needs a different file to be compiled in.) [1] https://developer.arm.com/documentation/101028/0011/Feature-test-macros?lan… /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M Sent: 25 August 2020 15:56 To: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] New build system with IAR Hi David, Apparently yes. Here are the valid M33 choices for IAR: --- thomasto@ubuntu-20:~/tf-m1/trusted-firmware-m$ iccarm --cpu list|grep -i m33 Cortex-M33 Cortex-M33.no_dsp Cortex-M33.fp Cortex-M33.fp.no_dsp Cortex-M33.no_se Cortex-M33.no_dsp.no_se Cortex-M33.fp.no_se Cortex-M33.fp.no_dsp.no_se --- Cheers, Thomas Den 2020-08-25 kl. 15:49, skrev David Hu: Hi Thomas, Sorry if I misunderstand your problem. Does it mean that diverse compilers require different core config flags? Best regards, Hu Ziji ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org><mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org><mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 7:39 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org><mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] New build system with IAR I've started looking at the new build system, and it looks like a nice improvement. I have a problem, that likely has a simple solution, although I'm not sure which. I've looked at the AN521 target, and the preload.cmake file is included very early from the root CMakeLists.txt The first line of preload.cmake is: --- set(CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR cortex-m33+nodsp) --- For IAR that line should be: --- set(CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR Cortex-M33.no_dsp) --- I need to discriminate between the toolchains already there, but I haven't figured out what the best way would be to do that. Not much is setup at this moment in the run. Ideas? Thomas -- Thomas Törnblom, Product Engineer IAR Systems AB Box 23051, Strandbodgatan 1 SE-750 23 Uppsala, SWEDEN Mobile: +46 76 180 17 80 Fax: +46 18 16 78 01 E-mail: thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com<mailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com> Website: www.iar.com<http://www.iar.com> Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems<http://www.twitter.com/iarsystems> -- Thomas Törnblom, Product Engineer IAR Systems AB Box 23051, Strandbodgatan 1 SE-750 23 Uppsala, SWEDEN Mobile: +46 76 180 17 80 Fax: +46 18 16 78 01 E-mail: thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com<mailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com> Website: www.iar.com<http://www.iar.com> Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems<http://www.twitter.com/iarsystems>

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

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

by Soby Mathew

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform

by Soby Mathew

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform

by Andrew Murray

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

-DBL2=False causes duplicates in ASM_FLAGS in makefiles

by Thomas Törnblom

For some reason that I've not been able to track down, using -DBL2=False on the cmake command line causes ASM_FLAGS to have duplicated debug flags and defines. It does not happen to C_FLAGS and it doesn't happen with -DBL2=True. I've worked around the issue in https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5365, but a cleaner solution would be to avoid this in the first place. I would appreciate if someone with more cmake experience could have a go at this. It causes build failures with IAR, and ARMCLANG and GNUARM doesn't care about the duplicates. Thomas -- *Thomas Törnblom*, /Product Engineer/ IAR Systems AB Box 23051, Strandbodgatan 1 SE-750 23 Uppsala, SWEDEN Mobile: +46 76 180 17 80 Fax: +46 18 16 78 01 E-mail: thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com <mailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com> Website: www.iar.com <http://www.iar.com> Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems <http://www.twitter.com/iarsystems>

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform

by Thomas Törnblom

AN521 is also mps2+/m33. Den 2020-08-20 kl. 08:48, skrev Andrew Murray via TF-M: > Hi Soby ;) > > I'm currently using an MPS2+ board with the AN539 system to experiment > with TF-M code for a new M33-based, IC design. Does "deprecating the > AN539 platform" effectively mean deprecating TF-M support for the > MPS2+ FPGA platform entirely? In other words: is AN539 the only > example subsystem for the MPS2+ board that supports the M33 and TF-M? > If it is, then I'd like to object (for what that's worth!) > > (Feel free to try to persuade me of the merits of an alternative > prototyping platform.) > > Andrew ;) > > /--/ > > /Andrew Murray/ > > /indie Semiconductor |Technical Director | MCU Architectures & Security/ > > // > > > > ... > From: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew(a)arm.com <mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com>> > To: TF-M mailing list <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > <mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:11:36 +0000 > Subject: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform > > Hi Everyone, > > As mentioned in > https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/docs/contr…, > we would like to propose the deprecation of AN539 MPS2 platform and > remove the same from TF-M master after next release. As per the > process, this proposal will be open for discussion for a period of 4 > weeks and if there are no major objections, the platform will be > marked as deprecated. > > Thanks & Regards > > Soby Mathew > > -- *Thomas Törnblom*, /Product Engineer/ IAR Systems AB Box 23051, Strandbodgatan 1 SE-750 23 Uppsala, SWEDEN Mobile: +46 76 180 17 80 Fax: +46 18 16 78 01 E-mail: thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com <mailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com> Website: www.iar.com <http://www.iar.com> Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems <http://www.twitter.com/iarsystems>

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Deprecate AN539 platform

by Andrew Murray

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

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

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The agenda is empty since no topics were proposed. I will start the session anyway for ad-hoc discussions or Q&A, but feel free to treat it as cancelled and enjoy your vacation season. The best, Anton Komlev From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 12 August 2020 13:56 To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - August 20 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, August 20 at 6:00-07:00 UTC (Asia time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Recording and slides of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/ Best regards, Anton Komlev

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Deprecate AN539 platform

by Soby Mathew

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Detailed build logfiles

by Gyorgy Szing

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

5 years, 2 months

2
1
0 0

Detailed build logfiles

by Malcolm Fernandes

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

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M