Hello
We have some platform-specific values provisioned in OTP that we need to retrieve and store in ITS (with encryption enabled) during initialization. We could do something similar to template file crypto_nv_seed.c, where the tfm_plat_crypto_provision_entropy_seed function is invoked from tfm_crypto_engine_init within secure_fw/partitions/crypto/crypto_init.c. However, we have a few questions:
1. Adding something similar in tfm_its_init won’t work as psa_its_* would again call into ITS via SPM which could be a problem? Also there is no hook in its_init to add platform specific routines as well? Is this correct?
2. Since crypto_init.c is part of secure_fw/, we’re uncertain about adding new platform-specific routines directly in tfm_crypto_engine_init. If this is not advisable, could you suggest an ideal place for implementing this functionality?
3. Regarding the SFN model, our understanding is that SPM initializes all partitions (and their respective services) before transitioning control to the NS side. Could you confirm if this is correct? We want to make sure that the provisioned values are stored in ITS before receiving request from NS client.
Thank you for your guidance!
Saurabh
Open CI infrastructure has been down since this morning and currently still not working. Will post updates to the mailing list once they are available.
Thanks,
Antonio
Hi All
I am quite new to TF-M and would like some insight into the query below. I appreciate any help you can provide.
We're adding encryption support for ITS and for nonce requirement, we're thinking of accessing TRNG which is part of the crypto partition. Now, we're aware of the possible cyclic dependency issue with the IPC model but since we're using the SFN model, will it be okay to access crypto service(TRNG) from ITS? In other words, would cyclic dependency be a concern in SFN model provided there are no limitations on hardware?
Thanks in advance.
Saurabh
Hi all,
A heads up that the Total Compute 2022 (TC2) platform is due to be deprecated. If there is no objection, I will go ahead and remove TC2 from the TF-M codebase a month from now (25/11/24). Thank you.
Thanks,
Jackson
Hi all,
I'm currently looking into an issue reported internally where the maximum latency for a zero-latency, priority 0 interrupt dramatically increases during a call to the PSA Protected Storage (PS) API.
The maximum interrupt latency goes up ~10-fold, or even some more at times (it varies), and this is not acceptable to code running on the NS side for normal operation.
It's as simple as calling psa_ps_set(1, 4, buf, PSA_STORAGE_FLAG_NONE) once.
During that call (which I am told was also seen to be unreasonably long: 600ms for 4 bytes, 1s for 1000 bytes), the maximum interrupt latency goes up.
It (the maximum) seems to not vary too much even if increasing the size of stored assets (tested up to 4000 bytes), though it can get up to 20 times higher than the normal interrupt latency.
Also, other functions were tested (psa_generate_random(), psa_hash_compute()).
Those don't provoke an increased interrupt latency. Maybe it's only about the PS, or maybe some other calls can provoke that as well.
Does someone have an explanation for that?
And even more importantly, can that interrupt latency be reduced, ideally down to normal levels?
Thanks in advance.
Tomi
Hi,
We are going to set the PSA_2_0_0 profile as the default for the initial attestation service. This will impact which claims are included in the token and their key values.
More details are here:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tschofenig-rats-psa-token-24.html
Changes on review:
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22attest_profile_update%22
As a follow-up action, the PSA_IOT_PROFILE_1 is being deprecated.
We are planning to remove it from the code base as well.
To figure out the timing of this we would like to collect some data:
* If you are using the PSA_IOT_PROFILE_1 please let us know what would be a feasible time for you to switch over the PSA_2_0_0 profile. Thanks!
Best regards,
Tamas Ban
Hello,
This email is a notification of a new security vulnerability reported to TF-M by Infineon Technologies AG, in collaboration with: Tobias Scharnowski, Simon Wörner and Johannes Willbold from fuzzware.io.
Unchecked user-supplied pointer via mailbox messages may cause write of arbitrary address.
Please find the security advisory attached. The fix has been merged on the latest main branch tfm_spe_mailbox: Do not write-back on input vectors checks failure<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/31512>
We're preparing a hotfix release v2.1.1 to include fixes for this vulnerability and bugs reported till that date via TF-M issue tracker: https://github.com/TrustedFirmware-M/trusted-firmware-m/issues?q=is%3Aissue
Thanks and best regards
Author
Hi everyone,
It has come to our attention that QEMU is no longer able to run the regression tests in a timely manner, and before we go ahead and outright disable them, we would like to know if anyone is using QEMU for their platform testing.
If so, please reply to this message and we can have further discussion on the point.
Thanks, Matt
+ TF-M mailing list
From: David Horstmann via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 5:14 PM
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Lee, William <William.Lee(a)garmin.com>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Re: Looking for suggestions about make Mbed TLS APIs non-secure callable APIs on armv8m
Hi William,
Since Mbed TLS is a cross-platform library, we don't deal directly with TrustZone-M.
However, if I have understood correctly, I think your usecase is solved by the Trusted Firmware M (TF-M) project[1], which is an implementation of secure firmware that provides cryptography services via non-secure-callable APIs.
TF-M uses Mbed TLS internally and implements the PSA Certified Cryptography API[2]. The Crypto Service Integration Guide[3] in the documentation should be a good starting point for what you are trying to do.
I hope that helps,
David Horstmann
Mbed TLS developer
[1] https://www.trustedfirmware.org/projects/tf-m
[2] https://www.psacertified.org/getting-certified/crypto-api-compliance/
[3] https://trustedfirmware-m.readthedocs.io/en/latest/integration_guide/servic…
[https://www.trustedfirmware.org/images/social-media-image.png]<https://www.trustedfirmware.org/projects/tf-m>
TrustedFirmware-M (TF-M)<https://www.trustedfirmware.org/projects/tf-m>
TrustedFirmware-M (TF-M) implements the Secure Processing Environment (SPE) for Armv8-M, Armv8.1-M architectures or dual-core platforms.
www.trustedfirmware.org<http://www.trustedfirmware.org>
________________________________
From: Lee, William via mbed-tls <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Sent: 24 September 2024 15:08
To: mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org> <mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:mbed-tls@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Subject: [mbed-tls] Looking for suggestions about make Mbed TLS APIs non-secure callable APIs on armv8m
Hi Mbed TLS,
I am looking for some suggestions about make some (or all) Mbed TLS APIs non-secure callable APIs on armv8m.
The background is that I am going to have a secure firmware that provides encryption services by building part (or whole) of Mbed TLS into that firmware and make those original mbedtls_x APIs non-secure callable, so the existing non-secure firmware could link those non-secure callable APIs and use them.
Some of my thoughts:
(1) The easiest way to do it I can think of is just add the attribute "cmse_nonsecure_call" to those APIs' declaration (or use a macro to wrap the attribute for conditional build to not impact others don't want it), but I do not think this modification could be accepted by upstream 🙂.
(2) So my another thought is duplicate all header files and put them under another folder, assuming it is my-include folder, then I can do whatever I want to my-include folder, but there is also a problem I can think of: a merge/compare burden between include and my-include folder after I have updated Mbed TLS.
I really appreciate other suggestions!
Thanks,
William
Hi all,
I am working on integrating our IP(PUFcc) into TF-Mv2.1.0, with the PUFcc located at address 0x51700000.
The PUFcc can be access on bl2 stage, however, it cannot be access on booting tf-m stage.
The exception log as below:
[cid:image002.png@01DAEFC7.96FE4EB0]FATAL ERROR: HardFault
Here is some context for the exception:
EXC_RETURN (LR): 0xFFFFFFF1
Exception came from secure FW in handler mode.
xPSR: 0x00000003
MSP: 0x31000B18
PSP: 0x31000BF8
MSP_NS: 0xFFFFFFFC
PSP_NS: 0xFFFFFFFC
Exception frame at: 0x31000B18
R0: 0x31000B60
R1: 0x00000000
R2: 0x0000001B
R3: 0x00000002
R12: 0x00000000
LR: 0x38009EF7
PC: 0x3800AB02
xPSR: 0x6100000B
Callee saved register state: R4: 0xFFFFFFF9
R5: 0x31000B60
R6: 0x00000002
R7: 0x00000002
R8: 0x38030F24
R9: 0x0000001B
R10: 0x00000011
R11: 0x38030F11
CFSR: 0x00008200
BFSR: 0x00000082
BFAR: 0x00000004
MMFSR: 0x00000000
MMFAR: Not Valid
UFSR: 0x00000000
HFSR: 0x40000000
SFSR: 0x00000000
SFAR: Not Valid
The diff patch as below:
[cid:image003.png@01DAEFC7.96FE4EB0]--- a/secure_fw/spm/core/main.c
+++ b/secure_fw/spm/core/main.c
@@ -56,6 +56,9 @@ static fih_int tfm_core_init(void)
*/
SPMLOG_INFMSG("\033[1;34mBooting TF-M "VERSION_FULLSTR"\033[0m\r\n");
+ uint32_t* p_s = (uint32_t *)0x51700000;
+ printf("p_s = %08x\n", (uint32_t)*p_s);
Could you provide any suggestions on this issue?
Best regards,
Mark Chen
Research & Development Division II
PUFsecurity Corporation
Tel: 886-3-5601010 ext. 3110
Fax: 886-3-5601177
Email: mark(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:mark@pufsecurity.com>
[cid:image001.png@01DAEFC5.FD4AE270]
From: Andy Chen <andychen(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:andychen@pufsecurity.com>>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2024 12:12 AM
To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>>
Cc: Randy Liu <randyliu(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:randyliu@pufsecurity.com>>; Victor Huang <victor(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:victor@pufsecurity.com>>; Neil Chen <neilchen(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:neilchen@pufsecurity.com>>; Antonio De Angelis <Antonio.DeAngelis(a)arm.com<mailto:Antonio.DeAngelis@arm.com>>; Shebu Varghese Kuriakose <Shebu.VargheseKuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:Shebu.VargheseKuriakose@arm.com>>
Subject: Re: [Technical Loop] PSA Crypto API with PUFcc on the TF-M platform
Hi Anton,
Thank you and enjoy your time!!!
Best,
Andy
________________________________
寄件者: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>>
寄件日期: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 11:34:48 PM
收件者: Andy Chen <andychen(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:andychen@pufsecurity.com>>
副本: Randy Liu <randyliu(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:randyliu@pufsecurity.com>>; Victor Huang <victor(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:victor@pufsecurity.com>>; Neil Chen <neilchen(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:neilchen@pufsecurity.com>>; Antonio De Angelis <Antonio.DeAngelis(a)arm.com<mailto:Antonio.DeAngelis@arm.com>>; Shebu Varghese Kuriakose <Shebu.VargheseKuriakose(a)arm.com<mailto:Shebu.VargheseKuriakose@arm.com>>
主旨: RE: [Technical Loop] PSA Crypto API with PUFcc on the TF-M platform
HI Andy,
Great to hear good news.
I will be in annual leave from tomorrow, Aug 1st, but Antonio (coped) could help you and can redirect the possible questions to appropriate team members.
With the occasion, I would appreciate if your team evaluates and follows TF-M documentation and gives us feedback on possible confusion or missing information.
Best regards,
Anton
From: Andy Chen <andychen(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:andychen@pufsecurity.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 3:26 PM
To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>>
Cc: Randy Liu <randyliu(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:randyliu@pufsecurity.com>>; Victor Huang <victor(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:victor@pufsecurity.com>>; Neil Chen <neilchen(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:neilchen@pufsecurity.com>>
Subject: [Technical Loop] PSA Crypto API with PUFcc on the TF-M platform
#Set a new mail loop
Hi Anton,
We set a kick-off meeting of "PSA Crypto API with PUFcc on the TF-M platform" this week.
• TF-M v2.1.0
• PSA Crypto API - v1.2.1
• PSA Certified APIs Architecture Test Suite - v1.6
• MPS3 with AN552
Randy, Victor, and Neil are members of this project.
We would have many issues when developing that need your help to solve it.
Please feel free to add your teams. Let's make the project successful.
Thank you very much.
Have a Nice Day,
Andy
[cid:image001.png@01DAEFC5.FD4AE270]
熵碼科技股份有限公司
Tel: 886-3-5601010 #2119
Email: andychen(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:andychen@pufsecurity.com>
Website: https://www.pufsecurity.com/
-------- Disclaimer: This e-mail is from PUFsecurity Corporation. This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail by persons other than the intended recipient may violate applicable laws. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify us immediately (by reply e-mail) and delete this e-mail from your system. Our postal address is 8F-1, No. 5, Tai-Yuan 1st St., Jhubei City, Hsinchu County 302082, Taiwan.--------
-------- Disclaimer: This e-mail is from PUFsecurity Corporation. This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail by persons other than the intended recipient may violate applicable laws. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify us immediately (by reply e-mail) and delete this e-mail from your system. Our postal address is 8F-1, No. 5, Tai-Yuan 1st St., Jhubei City, Hsinchu County 302082, Taiwan.--------
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
-------- Disclaimer: This e-mail is from PUFsecurity Corporation. This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail by persons other than the intended recipient may violate applicable laws. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify us immediately (by reply e-mail) and delete this e-mail from your system. Our postal address is 8F-1, No. 5, Tai-Yuan 1st St., Jhubei City, Hsinchu County 302082, Taiwan.--------
-------- Disclaimer: This e-mail is from PUFsecurity Corporation. This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail by persons other than the intended recipient may violate applicable laws. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify us immediately (by reply e-mail) and delete this e-mail from your system. Our postal address is 8F-1, No. 5, Tai-Yuan 1st St., Jhubei City, Hsinchu County 302082, Taiwan.--------
-------- Disclaimer: This e-mail is from PUFsecurity Corporation. This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail by persons other than the intended recipient may violate applicable laws. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify us immediately (by reply e-mail) and delete this e-mail from your system. Our postal address is 8F-1, No. 5, Tai-Yuan 1st St., Jhubei City, Hsinchu County 302082, Taiwan.--------
Hello,
We noticed that build of TF-M for CM33 platform generates ELF file for which architecture is armv3m. Step to reproduce:
1. Build TF-M secure image for CM33 platform with armclang (used 6.19).
2. Use arm-none-eabi-objdump provided with arm-gnu-toolchain-11.3.rel1-mingw-w64-i686-arm-none-eabi to print headers:
* arm-none-eabi-objdump -x tfm_s.axf
You will see following output:
tfm_s.axf
architecture: armv3m, flags 0x00000012:
EXEC_P, HAS_SYMS
While fromelf (from armclang) prints following:
========================================================================
** ELF Header Information
File Name: tfm_s.axf
Machine class: ELFCLASS32 (32-bit)
Data encoding: ELFDATA2LSB (Little endian)
Header version: EV_CURRENT (Current version)
Operating System ABI: none
ABI Version: 0
File Type: ET_EXEC (Executable) (2)
Machine: EM_ARM (ARM)
Image Entry point: 0x16004319
Flags: EF_ARM_HASENTRY + EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_HARD (0x05000402)
ARM ELF revision: 5 (ABI version 2)
Is't expected? Because we have problems with debugging images generated by armclang in eclipse with gdb.
Regards,
Roman.
Hi all,
I have pushed for review a change to improve the TF-M linker scripts / scatter files: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/30316
There are two ideas behind the change:
* Merge the isolation level 3 features from the tfm_isolation_l3 linker files into tfm_common_s, so that one linker file can support all TF-M isolation levels.
* Group the memory by its desired memory protection attribute as far as possible, so that as much of the memory map as possible can be covered by MPU regions to restrict the attributes to no more than needed. The main advantage of this is to reduce how much of the memory is executable.
There are more details in the commit message.
Since it could be a disruptive change, the new linker files are added in addition to the existing tfm_common_s.sct/ld/icf and tfm_isolation_l3.sct/ld/icf ones and only platforms that are already using the common tfm_hal_isolation_v8m.c are switched over for now. But the idea is that platforms can gradually migrate and eventually the existing linker files can be removed.
Kind regards,
Jamie
Hi TF-M teams,
This is Andy from PUFsecurity, and we have a project with ARM.
We try to integrate the PSA Crypto API with PUFcc (Our Crypto Engine) on TF-M.
However, there are multiple versions included, and we need your assistance for specification clarification.
Please ensure the versions match your recommendations.
For TF-M, we plan to integrate with:
TF-M v2.1.0
PSA Crypto API - v1.1.0
PSA Certified APIs Architecture Test Suite - v1.6
TF-M
It would be beneficial to use the same hardware (FPGA) and tools as the ARM development team.
If we can confirm which models are used for TF-M , scripts or details with the ARM hardware That would be grateful.
PSA Crypto API -
The test bench is using the PSA Crypto API v1.1.0, and it is published in 2022.
And Now is v1.2.1 in March 2024. I not sure it is a good choose or not.
[cid:983ad4d1-6d7d-4acb-a22d-5a49b94594d4]
Test Bench -
For the "PSA Certified APIs Architecture Test Suite - v1.6," we would like to identify which test codes (test_c001 to test_c067) are relevant for TF-M.
Thank you very much!!!
Have a Nice Day,
Andy
[cid:2fcb4633-c50b-4a64-8161-c5020f3b1ad3]
熵碼科技股份有限公司
Tel: 886-3-5601010 #2119
Email: andychen(a)pufsecurity.com<mailto:andychen@pufsecurity.com>
Website: https://www.pufsecurity.com/
-------- Disclaimer: This e-mail is from PUFsecurity Corporation. This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail by persons other than the intended recipient may violate applicable laws. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify us immediately (by reply e-mail) and delete this e-mail from your system. Our postal address is 8F-1, No. 5, Tai-Yuan 1st St., Jhubei City, Hsinchu County 302082, Taiwan.--------
-------- Disclaimer: This e-mail is from PUFsecurity Corporation. This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail by persons other than the intended recipient may violate applicable laws. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify us immediately (by reply e-mail) and delete this e-mail from your system. Our postal address is 8F-1, No. 5, Tai-Yuan 1st St., Jhubei City, Hsinchu County 302082, Taiwan.--------
Hi all,
I would like to propose a unified logging library in TF-M. The primary aim of this is to combine the fragmented logging we have across TF-M into a single logging library, with a single top-level API. Currently, different components (BL1, SPM, secure partition, etc.) have different logging APIs and these also have different underlying implementations. Some call directly into the UART output string function and others call printf. Sometimes using one logging API in a different component leads to build failures, or nothing ending up on the UART at all.
The primary aim here is for users to be able to use the same API throughout TF-M and for it to always work. This API will naturally be split into different logging levels, with build configuration controlled whether or not the string is actually output. Note that the underlying implementation can be different for different components - there can be hooks within the library which allow components to specify how they want to output the string. Initially, these can be used to maintain the existing underlying implementation. In the longer term, however, it would be useful to unify the underlying implementation also whether that be by using printf or with our own custom printf format parser.
Please let me know any thoughts or concerns about the above suggestion.
Thanks,
Jackson
Hello everyone,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to understand more about you and how we can design the technical information for your needs. For those who weren’t on the technical forum call today, here’s a summary of what these interviews are about:
We’re calling for volunteers to help us better understand who our users are and how we can improve your technical documentation journey. We’ll be conducting 45 minute – 1 hour interviews over Zoom to ask questions about your role, the tasks you perform, how you learn, and how you use our documentation. In today’s forum, Lisa Durbin (Principal Technical Content Developer) will run through the details about the interviews and how you can take part.
If you’re interested in taking part in the interviews, please do both of the following:
1. Fill out the consent form here on the Microsoft Forms site<https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=eVlO89lXqkqtTbEipmIYTWl…>.
2. Book a 1 hour Zoom session with me here on the Office Bookings site.<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/5b86408b60db4f51ba9459930fbc64a3…>
Please note, I’m based in Cambridge UK and my availability is during BST office hours. I’ll be running the sessions starting July 8th until September 30th, 2024.
If you have any questions or would like further information, please feel free to email me directly. Thank you again for your help.
Kind regards,
Lisa Durbin
Lisa Durbin | Principal Technical Content Developer
She/her
CE-SW Technology Management team
Cambridge
Hi All,
I pushed for review a Request For Comments (RFC) patch where I remove specific attributes for sections introduced a while ago.
At that time, it was fixing an issue with Armclang builds.
However it has been noticed that with GCC, those functions are not placed within the .text section, as otherwise expected.
With the proposed RFC patch https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/29755,
I ran a few tests and builds and the "old" issue with Armclang does not appear anymore and the functions are correctly placed within the .text section.
I would like to ask the community to cherry pick the patch and build & run their tests, to further verify that we are not breaking anything else.
If no issues are reported in a week or so, I will remove the RFC and then the patch will go through the final review.
Many thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Best regards,
Nicola Mazzucato (he/him/his) | CE Software group | Arm
110 Fulbourn Rd, CB1 9NJ, Cambridge UK
At Arm we work flexibly and globally, if you receive this email outside of your usual working hours please do not feel that you have to respond immediately.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Hi TF-M and mbedtls community,
I am new to TF-M, I have a few questions about CryptoCell and random number generation. Thank you in advance.
1.
I figure there seems to have two CryptoCell 312 implementations within TF-M. One under lib/ext/cryptocell-312-runtime and the other under platform/ext/accelerator/cc312/cc312-rom. What are the difference between these two?
2.
For lib/ext/cryptocell-312-runtime, it does not define MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_EXTERNAL_RNG whereas /ext/accelerator/cc312/cc312-rom does. Does that mean cryptocell-312-runtime is initiating RNG cryptodriver by using mbedtls_entropy_add_source whereas cc312-rom is using mbedtls_psa_external_get_random<https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/8df9cc8baf462…>. If so, may I ask why these two cryptocells take two different approaches? I read from one of the documentation that mbedtls_psa_external_get_random is used when entropy is sufficient. So if entropy is sufficient, is it always preferred to have MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_EXTERNAL_RNG defined and implements mbedtls_psa_external_get_random? What are the differences between the two approaches.
3.
I also found cryptocell-312-runtime defines the entry point function cc3xx_init_random<https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/8df9cc8baf462…>. But since PSA random number entry point funciton is not complete, the cc3xx_init_random is not being called anywhere, right?
[https://opengraph.githubassets.com/17cdebc400b0ed807c620b586b21f3f77ff9c5d3…]<https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/8df9cc8baf462…>
trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/accelerator/cc312/cc312-rom/psa_driver_api/src/cc3xx_psa_random.c at 8df9cc8baf46252fd188bba1d87333a8daa9a5e8 · zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m<https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/blob/8df9cc8baf462…>
Zephyr repository tracking https://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git/ - zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m
github.com
4.
I know random number generation PSA entry point function is in development, may I ask when that would be expected to complete?
Thank you very much!
Best regards,
Hao
Hi all
I am porting a new SoC to TF-M platform. I know I have missed something in my platform files that I am getting following error message, can someone please guide me. Thanks
Built target manifest_tool
[ 3%] Building C object platform/CMakeFiles/platform_s.dir/ext/common/uart_stdout.o
[ 4%] Building C object platform/CMakeFiles/platform_s.dir/ext/common/template/nv_counters.o
[ 6%] Building C object platform/CMakeFiles/platform_s.dir/ext/common/template/flash_otp_nv_counters_backend.o
[ 6%] Building C object platform/CMakeFiles/platform_s.dir/ext/common/template/otp_flash.o
[ 7%] Building C object platform/CMakeFiles/platform_s.dir/ext/common/provisioning.o
[ 8%] Linking C static library libplatform_s.a
[ 12%] Built target platform_s
[ 13%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/service_api.o
[ 13%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/__/__/__/spm/core/psa_interface_sfn.o
[ 13%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/__/__/__/__/interface/src/tfm_psa_call.o
[ 14%] Linking C static library libtfm_sprt.a
[ 17%] Built target tfm_sprt
[ 17%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/tfm_boot_data.o
[ 17%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/utilities.o
[ 18%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/arch/tfm_arch.o
[ 18%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/main.o
[ 19%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/spm_ipc.o
[ 19%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/rom_loader.o
[ 20%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/psa_api.o
[ 20%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/psa_call_api.o
[ 20%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/psa_version_api.o
[ 21%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/psa_read_write_skip_api.o
[ 21%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/backend_sfn.o
[ 23%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/tfm_svcalls.o
[ 23%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/tfm_pools.o
[ 24%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/ns_client_ext/tfm_spm_ns_ctx.o
[ 24%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/spm_local_connection.o
[ 24%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/core/arch/tfm_arch_v8m_main.o
[ 25%] Building C object secure_fw/spm/CMakeFiles/tfm_spm.dir/__/__/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.o
C:/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.c: In function 'tfm_hal_irq_enable':
C:/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.c:21:5: warning: implicit declaration of function 'NVIC_EnableIRQ' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
21 | NVIC_EnableIRQ((IRQn_Type)irq_num);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C:/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.c:21:21: error: 'IRQn_Type' undeclared (first use in this function)
21 | NVIC_EnableIRQ((IRQn_Type)irq_num);
| ^~~~~~~~~
C:/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.c:21:21: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
C:/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.c:21:31: error: expected ')' before 'irq_num'
21 | NVIC_EnableIRQ((IRQn_Type)irq_num);
| ~ ^~~~~~~
| )
C:/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.c: In function 'tfm_hal_irq_disable':
C:/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.c:28:5: warning: implicit declaration of function 'NVIC_DisableIRQ' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
28 | NVIC_DisableIRQ((IRQn_Type)irq_num);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C:/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.c:28:22: error: 'IRQn_Type' undeclared (first use in this function)
28 | NVIC_DisableIRQ((IRQn_Type)irq_num);
| ^~~~~~~~~
C:/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.c:28:32: error: expected ')' before 'irq_num'
28 | NVIC_DisableIRQ((IRQn_Type)irq_num);
| ~ ^~~~~~~
| )
C:/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.c: In function 'tfm_hal_irq_clear_pending':
C:/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.c:35:5: warning: implicit declaration of function 'NVIC_ClearPendingIRQ' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
35 | NVIC_ClearPendingIRQ((IRQn_Type)irq_num);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C:/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.c:35:27: error: 'IRQn_Type' undeclared (first use in this function)
35 | NVIC_ClearPendingIRQ((IRQn_Type)irq_num);
| ^~~~~~~~~
C:/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/common/tfm_hal_nvic.c:35:37: error: expected ')' before 'irq_num'
35 | NVIC_ClearPendingIRQ((IRQn_Type)irq_num);
Hi Maulik,
Thanks for your support.
1. I think I understand why you don’t get the error on the Musca-B1. In fact, we are not using the same flash driver:
1.1. My build uses the `emulated_flash_dvr`, which checks that the byte is erased in flash before attempting a write (this is where I get the error).
1.2. The Musca-B1 platform uses the `qspi_ip6514e_drv`, which does not perform such a check before writing to the flash. From what I understand, the MT25QL Series Flash NOR does not return an error even if you try to write a 1 in a bit that was 0. As such, you do not encounter the error.
2. It is strange that you don’t get the warning when MCUBOOT_CONFIRM_IMAGE=OFF.
Best regards,
Cédric
Hello Cedric,
I built with both MCUBOOT_CONFIRM_IMAGE=OFF (default config for musca b1) and MCUBOOT_CONFIRM_IMAGE=ON and in both cases, I do not get any error/warning.
Running Test Suite PSA firmware update NS interface tests (TFM_NS_FWU_TEST_1xxx)...
> Executing 'TFM_NS_FWU_TEST_1001'
Description: 'Functionity test.'
TEST: TFM_NS_FWU_TEST_1001 - PASSED!
> Executing 'TFM_NS_FWU_TEST_1002'
...
Best Regards,
Maulik
________________________________
From: tf-m-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 13 June 2024 1:00 AM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: TF-M Digest, Vol 68, Issue 13
Send TF-M mailing list submissions to
tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or
body 'help' to
tf-m-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
tf-m-owner(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of TF-M digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Firmware Update: Storage Failure While Rejecting a Staged Image
(cedric.klikpo(a)scalinx.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:06:16 -0000
From: cedric.klikpo(a)scalinx.com
Subject: [TF-M] Re: Firmware Update: Storage Failure While Rejecting a
Staged Image
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Message-ID:
<171820117605.1175.3411332003376446357(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Maulik,
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I got the error when the image is built with the option "MCUBOOT_CONFIRM_IMAGE" enabled.
When, when this option is not enable, I do not get the error, and the FWU test status is PASSED. However, the test is marked as passed with the following warning, which clearly states that the testcase is skipped:
```
Executing 'TFM_NS_FWU_TEST_1001'
Description: 'Functionality test.'
The component isn't in READY state: the device is not ready to run FWU tests, skip FWU test: 1. TEST: TFM_NS_FWU_TEST_1001 - PASSED!
```
So, I would like to confirm with you:
1. When you enable the option "MCUBOOT_CONFIRM_IMAGE," does your TFM_NS_FWU_TEST_1001 testcase pass?
2. When you disable the option "MCUBOOT_CONFIRM_IMAGE," do you get the same warning?
Best regards,
Cédric
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
TF-M mailing list -- tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tf-m-leave(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
------------------------------
End of TF-M Digest, Vol 68, Issue 13
************************************
Hello Cedric
Unfortunately we only have musca b1 support for FWU at the moment. However as you mentioned, I did try TFM version 1.8.0 on commit *35ac80c85 and all tests (secure and non-secure including FWU) passes without any issues.
Best Regards,
Maulik
Hello Cedric,
I tried the FWU tests on musca b1 platform and all of them passes without any failures.
Could you please provide more context on specific version/commit or platform where you encounter PSA_ERROR_STORAGE_FAILURE?
Best Regards,
Maulik
________________________________
From: tf-m-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: 07 June 2024 1:00 AM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: TF-M Digest, Vol 68, Issue 6
Send TF-M mailing list submissions to
tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or
body 'help' to
tf-m-request(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
tf-m-owner(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of TF-M digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Firmware Update: Storage Failure While Rejecting a Staged Image
(cedric.klikpo(a)scalinx.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 13:00:29 -0000
From: cedric.klikpo(a)scalinx.com
Subject: [TF-M] Firmware Update: Storage Failure While Rejecting a
Staged Image
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Message-ID:
<171767882935.438215.6657950002748011855(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi,
I encounter a storage failure when trying to reject a staged image. I get this error by executing `tfm_fwu_test_common_001` in `fwu_tests_common.c`. The error occurs when the `erase_boot_magic` function attempts to erase the magic number in the image trailer by writing erase into it.
The reason I am writing this post is to ask:
1. If the `erase_boot_magic` failure is a known bug in the firmware update, is a fix planned or existing?
2. Why doesn't the `erase_boot_magic` function erase the sector where the magic number is located in the image trailer, considering we erasing in a flash?
Thanks!
Best regards,
Cedric
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
TF-M mailing list -- tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tf-m-leave(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
------------------------------
End of TF-M Digest, Vol 68, Issue 6
***********************************