- TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

by Bohdan.Hunko＠infineon.com

Hi everyone, IAS docs have this<https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/docs/integration_guide/services…> note that says: There is a size field tlv_len which has different definitions in the upstream MCUboot repository and in its TF-M forked version: * Upstream MCUboot: Covers only the length of data but not the header size. * TF-M MCUboot: Covers the size of the entry header and the data together. This difference is handled by TF-M code based on which bootloader is used along with TF-M runtime. I was wondering where in code is this difference handled? When calculating next TLV entry address attest_core.c line 213<https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/secure_fw/…> takes into account SHARED_DATA_ENTRY_HEADER_SIZE: tlv_curr = (*tlv_ptr) + SHARED_DATA_ENTRY_HEADER_SIZE + tlv_entry.tlv_len; So tlv_entry.tlv_len then must cover only length of entry (without header). This way corresponds to: "Upstream MCUboot: Covers only the length of data but not the header size" I was not able to find anything related to "TF-M MCUboot: Covers the size of the entry header and the data together". Is this difference handled in TF-M fork of MCUboot or is it just outdated IAS doc? Best regards, Bohdan Hunko Cypress Semiconductor Ukraine Engineer CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW Mobile: +38099 50 19 714 Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>

3 years, 6 months

2
1
0 0

Problem with PSoC armclang build

by Chris.Brand＠infineon.com

Hi, We've been investigating a problem with the armclang builds for PSoC. The symptoms are that the board just repeatedly reboots. We've narrowed it down to commit 300c68da11 "SPM: Use Main Stack for initialization". This commit is fine with the gcc toolchain but doesn't seem right for armclang (we haven't yet looked at IAR). Still digging into the issue, but I figured it might be helpful to give it more publicity. Chris Brand Cypress Semiconductor (Canada), Inc. Sr Prin Software Engr CSCA CSS ICW SW PSW 1 Office: +1 778 234 0515 Chris.Brand(a)infineon.com<mailto:Chris.Brand@infineon.com>

3 years, 6 months

2
3
0 0

nxp/lpcxpresso55s69 builds broken

by Thomas Törnblom

While verifying that my Musca B1/S1 fixes for IAR did not break other targets I ran into building problems for the nxp/lpcxpresso55s69 for both gnuarm and iararm. I've tested with the following cmake line: cmake -GNinja -S .. -B . -DTFM_PLATFORM=nxp/lpcxpresso55s69 "-DTFM_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=..\toolchain_GNUARM.cmake" -DTEST_NS=ON -DTEST_S=ON -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo -DTFM_PSA_API=ON -DBL2=OFF Fails with: d:/apps/gnuarm/10-2020-q4-major/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/10.2.1/../../../../arm-none-eabi/bin/ld.exe: C:\Users\thomasto\Projects\tf-m12\trusted-firmware-m\gnuarm/../secure_fw/spm/ffm/psa_api.c:890: undefined reference to `tfm_hal_irq_disable' I notice that tfm_hal_irq_disable() is guarded by: #if TFM_LVL == 3 in .../nxp/common/tfm_hal_isolation.c, while the other targets does not have this guard. What isthe reason for that? Trying to set that with cmake causes other failures. commit 8444011d works commit 4051016f fails I tried bisecting between these two commits, but the builds run into other build failures so I gave up on that. Is his a known issue? I have successfully built and run regression tests on musca b1, musca s1, psoc64 and I have built, but not run an519, an521, an524 Cheers, 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>

3 years, 6 months

2
2
0 0

[PLATFORM ATTENTION REQUIRED] Partition interrupt binding patches have been merged

by Ken Liu

Dear platform owners, Theses interrupt binding patch(es) are merged: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11474 As the most part of the change happen in platform, please report platform integration if you met. Sorry I had thought the notification mail has been sent during the PR stage but it did not, hence it is not broadcasted in time. Current there are build errors reported on nxp/nordic platforms, and this patch should fix the problem: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11741 Also, Ci reported arch-test build fail, hence the fix for arch-test is here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11742 Feel free to put comments and I will update them later, or just update the patch if it is quick for you, add your name into the author in commit message. You also can create standalone patches if you change is not covered by mentioned patches. Thanks. /Ken

3 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Enablement of external bl2 builds

by Bohdan.Hunko＠infineon.com

Hi everyone, When adding support for new platform we ran into an issue with BL2 variable. In our architecture we have Bootloader based on MCUboot (aka BL2) but we are not planning to build it with TF-M. Bootloader would be separate repo and be built separately. So we need the way to build TF-M with FWU service and shared data definitions when BL2=OFF. I was trying to add support for this but was not able to do this because build structure is quite complicated. Does anyone have ideas or suggestions about the way we can implement this feature? Best regards, Bohdan Hunko Cypress Semiconductor Ukraine Engineer CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW Mobile: +38099 50 19 714 Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>

3 years, 6 months

3
3
0 0

Technical Forum call - Sep 30

by Anton Komlev

Hi, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, Sep 30, 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

3 years, 6 months

1
1
0 0

[IMPORTANT: PLATFORM BUILD ISSUE] [REQUIRE PLATFORM ACK] RE: [Request Platform Support] Abstracted MMIO HAL

by Ken Liu

Hi everyone, Being notified by some platform vendors that platforms build breaks in MASTER branch (releases are working well and not affected) due to not integrate with the latest HAL change: The reference link: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11036 And these platforms reported build break: Nordic NXP Because of bandwidth issues, we can’t maintain all the platform sources, hence require upstreamed platform owners to take a look at their platform builds and runs ok, and integrate with the updated HAL if it does fail. Please reply to this thread if there are problems and I have created one ticket for tracking this if replying in a thread is more convenient for you: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T967 Sorry for the inconvenience made, I should warn all the platform owners in earlier mails – I will validate the build again later in Oct to see if there are still platform breaks and contact the platform code owners to discuss plans. Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 3:06 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] [Request Platform Support] Abstracted MMIO HAL The MMIO binding patch set are all merged, assume this will simplify the SPM integration much. Follow up fixups will be created if missing comments reported. Anyway, all platform patches are not blocked anymore, feel free to merge the reviewed and CI passed patches. Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 1:27 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] [Request Platform Support] Abstracted MMIO HAL Hi, Another reminder to mention the MMIO binding patches. Several platforms are changed to pass the CI, please platform owners to review the patches, such as: PSOC: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11187 STM: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11186 Some of other platform patches are created as well. This is a significant change for platform which helps much easier integration. After the first series of patches, the problems not covered by the CI need to be fixed adhoc. Please read the tech forum topic on 2nd Sep for more details or you can just scroll down to check the previous content. Thanks. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 5:18 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] [Request Platform Support] Abstracted MMIO HAL The patchset has updated and now CI passed okay: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11187 BR /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 2:16 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: [TF-M] [Request Platform Support] Abstracted MMIO HAL Hi everyone, The existing HAL interface for isolation hardware is not unified, we have to call several interfaces to setup isolation boundaries. Hence, a deeper abstracted interface are provided. Here are the details: - It assumes the hardware resources usages are decided by system designer. Hence there are couple of listed hardware data in the platform code, now most of them are defined in C sources. - When a partition is referencing peripheral (represented as MMIO in FFM), the manifest tooling would link specified resources with the data defined in platform. Now it is using a naming pattern, to let the partition found the resources defined above (now it uses linker to do this). - A HAL API 'tfm_hal_bind_partition' is called when a partition runtime structure is created. This API tells partition info to platform, let platform return an encoded 'p_boundaries' for SPM binding partition with platform. - When boundaries related operations happen in future, SPM would delivery this 'p_boundaries' back to platform, let platform perform boundary setup and check, such as boundary switch or memory check. SPM won't care about the hardware specific settings any more, such as privilged, non-secure/secure and how many MMIO the partition claimed, even the MPU/MPC/PPC things. - Resources defined in platform sources but not referenced would be stripped by toolchain flag. Resources not defined but referenced by partition would generate a linker error, as symbol can't be resolved. We created a patch to showcase the usage on AN521: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11036 This patch applies a simple encoding for all isolation levels. You can check how the p_boundaries is used under different isolation levels. Platform can use other encoding mechanism if applicable. Now come to the request: Please review this patch, and port similar HAL API into your platform. We are maintaining the default platforms such as AN521, AN519 and MUSCA_B1, but it need so much effort on port to all the platforms. Current CI cannot pass on this patch (as it contains modification for one platform only), our first goal is to let CI pass build on all checked platforms, and then please platform owner ensures it works on your platform. Any feedbacks are welcome. Thank you very much! /Ken -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

3 years, 6 months

8
11
0 0

NSID improvement patches are in review

by David Wang

Hi, Believe you still remember I shared the non-secure client ID management update in tech forum<https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/> a few months ago (slides<https://www.trustedfirmware.org/docs/Non_Secure_Client_ID_management_update…>, video<https://linaro-org.zoom.us/rec/share/k7vJnf8qcugoRNxu5hRSyc0thzSTbTT295ZLyy…> (passcode: dqHBI$2z)). The patches and document are available in tf.org for public review. The integration reference and test suite are also provided. If you're using SPM to manage the NSID (fixed `-1` for all NS connections) which is the default option (`TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION` is OFF), then it basically won't affect you (if you don't play with `TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION` flag which is changed). NSCE (non-secure client extension) module is introduced to manage the non-secure context in TF-M which includes the NSID as a member. If you have a requirement to support different NSIDs for NS tasks, then it's for that purpose. Patches: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11288 (add non-secure context management) https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11289 (add NSCE interface API) https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11616 (Doc) https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11294 (Add NSCE support in nspm and build system) RTOS integration reference (based on RTX): https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tests/+/11290/ (NSID manager example) https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tests/+/11291/ (TZ API to NSCE API shim layer) A test suite is added. Tip of the test cases: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tests/+/11659/ Welcome to comment. Thanks. Regards, David Wang ARM Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Phone: +86-21-6154 9142 (ext. 59142)

3 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Proposal to separate vendor components

by Roman.Mazurak＠infineon.com

Hi all, The goal of this proposal is to separate TF-M core and platform code to simplify development and support. Take, for example, the Cypress PSoC 64 platform, we see that a significant amount of code can be committed into the repository. For end user perspective, it doesn't seem logical that project source tree has a lot of irrelevant stuff. It complicates a performance of IDE, searching and analyzing a code. Pros : Platform support can be provided separately without the need to upgrade outdated platforms or problematic platforms : https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-m/2021-January/001454.html https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/project-maintenance-p… It should help to avoid or at least to minimize number of patches that requires fixes in platform folders : https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-m/2019-April/000162.html Reduces the amount of work for core team by delegating promotion of a new API support to vendors : https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-m/2019-November/000506.html Proposed solution : There are other projects that face a similar situation, for example OpenWRT, Yocto, Android. Their common feature is that they have many dependencies. The solution they propose is based on the fact that these projects have their own build infrastructure. The user's task is to create a configuration in which you can add your own components. In its current state, the TF-M already has some tools to implement platform as an external dependency. The user can specify the path to the platform using the TFM_PLATFORM variable. There is also work underway to implement support of external test infrastructure. (https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-m/2021-September/001824.html). There is a need to add support of external secure partitions instead of current solution (https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/docs/integration_guide/services…). I can't say if this issue is directly related to the platform, but it's possible that it will give more opportunities to vendors or will be a useful tool for adding new platforms. The last question that needs to be addressed is how to link the sources supplied by vendors (platforms or security partitions) to the TF-M sources. Using the git submodule mechanism probably is not a good solution. There are two options : 1. Platforms, security partitions and test-suits will be listed as a submodule in the TF-M tree. But this approach will not actually solve the main problem of delegating more responsibility to vendors and breaking the connection between the vendors component and TF-M. 2. The TF-M source tree will be specified as a submodule in modules supplied by vendors. In this case we will have more problems. Because if the user's project will use two or more vendor components (for example, platform and custom security partitions), then TF-M will be mentioned more than once and it is quite possible to have several different revisions of TF-M. So, it will be impossible to properly assemble the project. Therefore, I see the use of the following approach as an alternative : 1. External components check the TF-M version using the TFM_VERSION variable. 2. A project that uses TF-M, as well as the necessary components (platforms, external security partitions, vendor / project test suites) specifies dependencies using any method. The simplest way is to commit TF-M and vendor components as submodules in the user project. 3. Paths to all dependencies should be transferred from the project to necessary parts of TF-M via CMake variables. This should be equally convenient for platforms vendors, TF-M components vendors, and TF-M end users. Risks : If the project assembled by end user will use several vendor modules (for example platform and custom security partitions). It is possible that the TF-M version required by different vendors modules will be different. But this problem is present at the moment, because any significant change to the TF-M API generates many problems that need to be solved for all supported platforms (mentioned in the pros). Any feedbacks are welcome. Best regards, Roman

3 years, 6 months

2
2
0 0

Request Access To a Board Peripheral for a App RoT - Problem

by Cristiano Rodrigues

Hi everyone, I'm trying to access an STM32L552 peripheral in a RoT APP (tf-m isolation v1.4 Level 2), but I'm having trouble doing that. I know that I have to request the peripheral in the YAML file of my partition's manifest, but that request didn't work for me. I filled the required campus and couldn't get access to the peripheral. I'm requesting the peripheral by putting this piece of code in my partition manifest YAML file. Am I missing something? ..... "mmio_regions" : [ { "name": "TFM_PERIPHERAL_TIMER0", "permission": "READ-WRITE" } ...... Another thing, I am only able to request the TIMER0 and UART peripherals? If I want to access other timers, e.g., TIMER 6 or TIMER 7, am I not allowed to do so? Cheers, Cristiano

3 years, 6 months

2
2
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M