- TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

by Lisa Durbin

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

1 year, 4 months

1
0
0 0

RFC: Remove specific section for psa_interface_thread_fn_call

by Nicola Mazzucato

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.

1 year, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Question about random number g

by Zhang, Hao

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

1 year, 4 months

2
2
0 0

Technical Forum call - July 7

by Anton Komlev

Hi, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, July 7, 15:00-16:00 UTC (West time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Link to the forum: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/95570795742?pwd=N21YWHJpUjZyS3Fzd0tkOG9hanpidz… Recording and slides of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/ Best regards, Anton

1 year, 4 months

10
62
0 0

New to TF-M

by Michael Khoyilar

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);

1 year, 5 months

2
1
0 0

Re: Firmware Update: Storage Failure While Rejecting a Staged Image

by Cedric Klikpo

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

1 year, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: Firmware Update: Storage Failure While Rejecting a Staged Image

by Maulik Patel

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 ************************************

1 year, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: Firmware Update: Storage Failure While Rejecting a Staged Image

by Maulik Patel

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

1 year, 5 months

2
1
0 0

Re: Firmware Update: Storage Failure While Rejecting a Staged Image

by Maulik Patel

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 ***********************************

1 year, 5 months

2
1
0 0

API_DISPATCH for tfm_crypto_api.c

by Quach, Brian

Hi, I noticed that trusted-firmware-m\interface\src\tfm_crypto_api.c defines two API_DISPATCH macros for psa_call(). It is used most of the time in the file, but I still see ~10 instances where psa_call() is used. Can it be changed to consistently use the API_DISPATCH macros. Regards, Brian Quach SimpleLink MCU Texas Instruments Inc.

1 year, 5 months

2
2
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M