- TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

Re: [TF-M] Multi-threaded single-scheduler model proposal

by Shreve, Erik

Anton, Yes, I can be prepared to discuss in the next forum. (I believe you are referring to the one on April 2nd). I've not participated in the forums yet, please send me some information as to the format/rules/etc. Thanks! Erik Shreve, PSEM Software Security Engineer & Architect (CMCU Platform Development) From: TF-M [mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 3:39 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TF-M] Multi-threaded single-scheduler model proposal Hi Erik, Thanks for proposing improvements to TF-M, cooperative scheduling namely. You hit the topic which was considered but postponed at some moment. Believe, it will be beneficial to all of us to discuss it online and share our views on potential improvement and possible side effects. Let me know, please, if you want to include this topic into next forum agenda? Kind regards, Anton Komlev From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Shreve, Erik via TF-M Sent: 23 March 2020 14:26 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Multi-threaded single-scheduler model proposal I'd like to propose an additional model that provides a single-scheduler _and_ multiple thread support for PSA RoT. To state a little more specifically: * The NSPE scheduler makes all scheduling decisions for execution (call) flows of the NSPE tasks - including when those flows are operating in secure side * APIs are provided to the NSPE scheduler to switch SPE task contexts (one task context associated to each NSPE task that uses PSA RoT) * Resource locking APIs are provided to allow PSA RoT functions to communicate with the NSPE scheduler (i.e. mutex take/give) * A SPE scheduler may still exist for application root of trust services, if any exist on a system. I don't see anything written up on a model like this in the design proposals or Phabricator. However, it appears to me that such a model (or something similar) must have been previously discussed. 1. There already exists a tz_context API set in CMSIS-Core for communicating task switches by the NSPE scheduler to the SPM 2. Cooperative scheduling rules design was accepted: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-test-nightly/lastSuccessfulBu… 3. https://youtu.be/6wEFoq49qUw?t=1671 speaks about having a stack on the SPE per NSPE task. Also, the question from the audience at the end of the presentation relates to having a single NSPE scheduler. A brief word on the motivation for such a proposal... To ease (and thus increase) adaptation of PSA RoT, wherein those services are protected from nontrusted code, the impact to the NSPE code should be minimized. The current models (Library, IPC) do well to minimize the impact from an API standpoint. That is, the NSPE caller need not know where/how the PSA RoT operates in order to compile. However, the current models do not minimize impact to scheduling on single core systems. The library model locks behind a single mutex the operations that previously existed independent of one another. The IPC model provides more flexibility. However, it still extends lock times beyond current implementations and it introduces an additional scheduler which removes determinism and forces system designers to rethink existing code. I'd like to know if there are any recorded plans for such a model (or something more similar to it than the three items above). If not, has it been discussed and actively rejected? If so why? I can/will write up a more concrete proposal, but wanted to get some discussion around the high-level idea first. Thanks, Erik Shreve, PSEM Software Security Engineer & Architect (CMCU Platform Development) Texas Instruments Inc. 12500 TI Boulevard, MS F4000 Dallas, TX 75243

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Multi-threaded single-scheduler model proposal

by Anton Komlev

Hi Erik, Thanks for proposing improvements to TF-M, cooperative scheduling namely. You hit the topic which was considered but postponed at some moment. Believe, it will be beneficial to all of us to discuss it online and share our views on potential improvement and possible side effects. Let me know, please, if you want to include this topic into next forum agenda? Kind regards, Anton Komlev From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Shreve, Erik via TF-M Sent: 23 March 2020 14:26 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Multi-threaded single-scheduler model proposal I'd like to propose an additional model that provides a single-scheduler _and_ multiple thread support for PSA RoT. To state a little more specifically: * The NSPE scheduler makes all scheduling decisions for execution (call) flows of the NSPE tasks - including when those flows are operating in secure side * APIs are provided to the NSPE scheduler to switch SPE task contexts (one task context associated to each NSPE task that uses PSA RoT) * Resource locking APIs are provided to allow PSA RoT functions to communicate with the NSPE scheduler (i.e. mutex take/give) * A SPE scheduler may still exist for application root of trust services, if any exist on a system. I don't see anything written up on a model like this in the design proposals or Phabricator. However, it appears to me that such a model (or something similar) must have been previously discussed. 1. There already exists a tz_context API set in CMSIS-Core for communicating task switches by the NSPE scheduler to the SPM 2. Cooperative scheduling rules design was accepted: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-test-nightly/lastSuccessfulBu… 3. https://youtu.be/6wEFoq49qUw?t=1671 speaks about having a stack on the SPE per NSPE task. Also, the question from the audience at the end of the presentation relates to having a single NSPE scheduler. A brief word on the motivation for such a proposal... To ease (and thus increase) adaptation of PSA RoT, wherein those services are protected from nontrusted code, the impact to the NSPE code should be minimized. The current models (Library, IPC) do well to minimize the impact from an API standpoint. That is, the NSPE caller need not know where/how the PSA RoT operates in order to compile. However, the current models do not minimize impact to scheduling on single core systems. The library model locks behind a single mutex the operations that previously existed independent of one another. The IPC model provides more flexibility. However, it still extends lock times beyond current implementations and it introduces an additional scheduler which removes determinism and forces system designers to rethink existing code. I'd like to know if there are any recorded plans for such a model (or something more similar to it than the three items above). If not, has it been discussed and actively rejected? If so why? I can/will write up a more concrete proposal, but wanted to get some discussion around the high-level idea first. Thanks, Erik Shreve, PSEM Software Security Engineer & Architect (CMCU Platform Development) Texas Instruments Inc. 12500 TI Boulevard, MS F4000 Dallas, TX 75243

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - April 2

by Jamie Fox

Hi Anton, As we will have moved to daylight saving time in US and Europe, it seems like 15.00 UTC could be a good compromise for this next session. Would result in 8.00 west coast/10.00 central/11.00 east/16.00 UK/17.00 Europe/23.00 China. So good times for US/Europe and still possible for China to join if anyone really wants to. What do you think? Kind regards, Jamie From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 23 March 2020 14:30 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - April 2 Hello, Last 3 sessions of the Tech Forum were convenient for Europe - Asia time zones, where majority of participants are. To let US members a chance to join at a reasonable time, propose to have the next session at US-friendly time (17:00 UTC) and then keep it every 4th, having 1:3 ratio. What do you think about such schema? As usual, please reply to this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Best regards, Anton Komlev

5 years, 1 month

2
1
0 0

TF-M Technical Forum call - April 2

by Anton Komlev

Hello, Last 3 sessions of the Tech Forum were convenient for Europe - Asia time zones, where majority of participants are. To let US members a chance to join at a reasonable time, propose to have the next session at US-friendly time (17:00 UTC) and then keep it every 4th, having 1:3 ratio. What do you think about such schema? As usual, please reply to this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Best regards, Anton Komlev

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Multi-threaded single-scheduler model proposal

by Shreve, Erik

I'd like to propose an additional model that provides a single-scheduler _and_ multiple thread support for PSA RoT. To state a little more specifically: * The NSPE scheduler makes all scheduling decisions for execution (call) flows of the NSPE tasks - including when those flows are operating in secure side * APIs are provided to the NSPE scheduler to switch SPE task contexts (one task context associated to each NSPE task that uses PSA RoT) * Resource locking APIs are provided to allow PSA RoT functions to communicate with the NSPE scheduler (i.e. mutex take/give) * A SPE scheduler may still exist for application root of trust services, if any exist on a system. I don't see anything written up on a model like this in the design proposals or Phabricator. However, it appears to me that such a model (or something similar) must have been previously discussed. 1. There already exists a tz_context API set in CMSIS-Core for communicating task switches by the NSPE scheduler to the SPM 2. Cooperative scheduling rules design was accepted: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-test-nightly/lastSuccessfulBu… 3. https://youtu.be/6wEFoq49qUw?t=1671 speaks about having a stack on the SPE per NSPE task. Also, the question from the audience at the end of the presentation relates to having a single NSPE scheduler. A brief word on the motivation for such a proposal... To ease (and thus increase) adaptation of PSA RoT, wherein those services are protected from nontrusted code, the impact to the NSPE code should be minimized. The current models (Library, IPC) do well to minimize the impact from an API standpoint. That is, the NSPE caller need not know where/how the PSA RoT operates in order to compile. However, the current models do not minimize impact to scheduling on single core systems. The library model locks behind a single mutex the operations that previously existed independent of one another. The IPC model provides more flexibility. However, it still extends lock times beyond current implementations and it introduces an additional scheduler which removes determinism and forces system designers to rethink existing code. I'd like to know if there are any recorded plans for such a model (or something more similar to it than the three items above). If not, has it been discussed and actively rejected? If so why? I can/will write up a more concrete proposal, but wanted to get some discussion around the high-level idea first. Thanks, Erik Shreve, PSEM Software Security Engineer & Architect (CMCU Platform Development) Texas Instruments Inc. 12500 TI Boulevard, MS F4000 Dallas, TX 75243

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Trusted Firmware Keynote @Linaro TechDays (Wed 25 Mar, 16:00-16:30 GMT)

by Shebu Varghese Kuriakose

Hi All, Trusted Firmware will be opening the Linaro Tech Days event on Wed 25th March at 4pm (16:00) GMT with a keynote presenting all the latest exciting news from the project. https://connect.linaro.org/resources/ltd20/ltd20-200k/ and, once registered, on sched: https://linarotechdays.sched.com/event/ZZFK/ltd20-200k-keynote-trusted-firm… The session will be live streamed and recorded (links in the above resources) and slides will be attached there too. Don't miss it! Regards, Shebu/Matteo

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] psa-arch-tests console baud rate

by Edison Ai

Hi Thomas, For your 2nd question. I have tested it on my side and it has the same problem. The TF-M can print normal boot message, but the log becomes garbage after enter into Arch test. The PSA Arch test is another independent project, and I have arisen this issue to the PSA Arch test project: https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/issues/164. You can watch this issue directly. Thanks, Edison From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Edison Ai via TF-M Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 9:54 PM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] psa-arch-tests console baud rate Hi Thomas, Thanks your mail. For your 1st question. There is indeed a problem to build the PSA arch crypto test on the Musca_a board for the RAM size is too small. I suggest you split the crypto tests into different test images on the Musca_a board. For the 2nd question, I only test that on FVP AN521 but never met this problem. We will test that on the MPS2 AN521 board soon to check if it is a real problem. If yes, we will try to fix that quickly. Thanks, Edison 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 Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 9:38 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] psa-arch-tests console baud rate Triggered by Rays mail on slow RSA key pair generation, I built and tried to run the tests, but ran into a couple of issues: 1) I attempted to build it for the Musca A, but apparently that doesn't have enough RAM to run these tests 2) Switching to an MPS2+ with AN521 configuration I see that the baud rate on the UART appears wrong when running the tests. mcuboot produces correct messages at 115200 bps, as does the normal ConfigRegression* tests, but the ConfigPsaApiTest* appears to produce just garbage. Is there a setting I need to set to get any useful data on the terminal when running the ConfigPsaApiTests? Cheers, Thomas -- Thomas Tï¿½rnblom, 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, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] [EXTERNAL] Re: SPM_IDLE

by DeMars, Alan

Ken, Our secure callback solution to this issue is working. I am just following up to understand what the SPM_IDLE concept is. Alan On Mar 20, 2020, at 4:34 AM, Ken Liu via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: Hi Alan, Looks like this is the still classic case, but unfortunately that there is no defined design at the current stage. Heard you were working on an solution for this, and got some issues when non-secure preempts secure execution, since your scheduler works in thread mode so cannot update secure context while scheduling – please correct me if my understanding is wrong. Is this mail a follow up or another thread just focus on discussion of the cooperative scheduling document? BR /Ken From: DeMars, Alan <ademars(a)ti.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 2:27 AM To: Ken Liu <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com> Cc: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: RE: SPM_IDLE Ken, Our use case is to support a “secure driver”: 1. A peripheral can only be accessed in secure mode. 2. The peripheral is configured and a hardware process is triggered within the peripheral. 3. When the process completes, a secure interrupt is triggered. 4. The NS thread that is using this driver should block (allowing other NS threads to run) while waiting for the hardware process to complete and resume when the process is finished. Alan From: TF-M [mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 10:28 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TF-M] SPM_IDLE Hi Alan, It (8.3.5) is one of the cases can be dealt with, and now it is not detail defined yet. Can you describe what your practical purpose for S/NS interactive is so that we could collect feedbacks to check if the rules are applicable? /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of DeMars, Alan via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 10:51 PM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Subject: [TF-M] SPM_IDLE Mention is made to “SPM_IDLE” in the Cooperative Scheduling Rules document: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-test-nightly/lastSuccessfulBu… I’m struggling to understand section 8.3.5 which references SPM_IDLE but doesn’t really define it. Is there more info on this topic? It appears to be a proposed solution for allowing other NS threads to be scheduled while the current NS thread is waiting for an asynchronous event in the secure service it has called. Alan -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Interface: Remove unused header include

by Devaraj Ranganna

Hi, The patchset https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/trusted-firmware-m/+/3620 removes the header `tfm_veneers.h` from PSA IPC API source files. If there are no objects then can this patchset be merged? Thanks, Dev 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.

5 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] SPM_IDLE

by DeMars, Alan

Ken, Our use case is to support a "secure driver": 1) A peripheral can only be accessed in secure mode. 2) The peripheral is configured and a hardware process is triggered within the peripheral. 3) When the process completes, a secure interrupt is triggered. 4) The NS thread that is using this driver should block (allowing other NS threads to run) while waiting for the hardware process to complete and resume when the process is finished. Alan From: TF-M [mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 10:28 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TF-M] SPM_IDLE Hi Alan, It (8.3.5) is one of the cases can be dealt with, and now it is not detail defined yet. Can you describe what your practical purpose for S/NS interactive is so that we could collect feedbacks to check if the rules are applicable? /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of DeMars, Alan via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 10:51 PM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] SPM_IDLE Mention is made to "SPM_IDLE" in the Cooperative Scheduling Rules document: https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-test-nightly/lastSuccessfulBu… I'm struggling to understand section 8.3.5 which references SPM_IDLE but doesn't really define it. Is there more info on this topic? It appears to be a proposed solution for allowing other NS threads to be scheduled while the current NS thread is waiting for an asynchronous event in the secure service it has called. Alan

5 years, 1 month

2
1
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M