- TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

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

4 years, 2 months

2
2
0 0

[Ask for review] FPU support in TF-M

by Feder Liang

Hi, All Patches for FPU support in TF-M are ready for review now. Looking for your comments! FPU here refers to Float-point unit for Arm-M profile architecture. 1. FPU support in TF-M * Support platforms: all platforms with FPU available. Current patches are developed on arm musca_s1 board as example. * After necessary settings in TF-M, it is configurable that FPU can be enabled in SPE or NSPE, or both sides. System developer can activate FPU feature on a platform by setting those flags in CMake command line. i. Enable FP in secure side: -DTFM_SYSTEM_FP= 0-software, 1-hybird, 2-hardware ii. Enable FP in non-secure side: -DTFM_SYSTEM_FP_NS= 0-software, 1-hybird, 2-hardware Also lazy stacking feature can be enabled/disabled in SPE or NSPE separately. iii. Enable lazy stacking in secure side: -DTFM_LAZY_FP=ON iv. Enable lazy stacking in non-secure side: -DTFM_LAZY_FP_NS=ON * The secure service developer/application developer does need to know the FPU setting details, they can just compile their program with proper toolchain flags to take advantage of FPU. The tested toolchains are: GNU Arm embedded toolchain and Arm Compiler. Other toolchain has FPU support should also work but needs test report from partners. Three floating-point Application Binary Interface (ABI) types of mentioned toolchain are tested: software, hybrid, and hardware option. * Support isolation level 1,2,3. * FPU needs to be available in your platform if you want to take the advantage of a hardware FPU. Please check your platform hardware specification whether FPU is available. Also need to check specification of toolchain whether the FPU architecture of your platform is supported. FPU architecture can be specified by -DTFM_FP_ARCH in CMake command line. 1. Notes: * As FF-M alignment is one of our design goals, it only supports IPC partitions at current stage. * The security mechanism is designed based on ARMv8-M Mainline and later. * To simplify the scenarios, we defined several guidelines that no involving FPU usage inside an interrupt handler, including deprivileged handler in one Partition. This can be fine-tuned later if there are requirements that insists a FPU support in handler mode. * In general, FPU is commonly available on a Armv8.0-M mainline. Please check your platform specification and report exception cases if seen. 1. For the VLLDM instruction security vulnerability of FPU, to mitigate this security vulnerability, it is required to recompile the secure image with compilers that has the software workaround implemented. For more information, please check https://developer.arm.com/support/arm-security-updates/vlldm-instruction-se…. 1. Those patches will be merged in 4-6 weeks if there is no big issue found. tf-m repo: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11688 FP context protection https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11689 Add FPU support for gnu arm embedded toolchain https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11690 Configure non-secrue timer for FPU test https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11691 Add FPU support design document https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11692 Output support for FP numbers https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11693 FPU support for Armclang compiler tf-m-tests repo: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tests/+/11684 Add FPU support https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tests/+/11685 Adding FPU test cases https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tests/+/11686 Adding FPU non-secure interrupt test case https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tests/+/11687 Printf support for FP numbers Best Regards Feder

4 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Outdated file location in FWU doc

by Bohdan.Hunko＠infineon.com

Hi everyone, While reading FWU service doc<https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/docs/technical_references/desig…> I found that Components paragraph<https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/docs/technical_references/desig…> contain table which says that tfm_bootloader_fwu_abstraction.h file is located in ./secure_fw/partitions/firmware_update/tfm_bootloader_fwu_abstraction.h , but it TF-M repo it is located in secure_fw\partitions\firmware_update\bootloader\tfm_bootloader_fwu_abstraction.h. Minor thing, but still worth fixing. 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>

4 years, 2 months

2
1
0 0

Trouble building Musca S1 with IAR

by Thomas Törnblom

I'm working on adding IARARM as a toolchain for the Musca S1 (and B1) and I'm running into an issue where the NS image can not properly access the UART. The NS code loops trying to check the UART status @0x40102030, which holds the value 0x301, as can be seen with the debugger and also from the secure code, but when read by the NS code it returns 0, with no error. As this code works when building with ARMCLANG and GNUARM, I assume there is some memory protection that gets incorrectly setup when I build with the IAR toolchain, but I'm struggling to find where this gets setup. I assume it is done in the secure image. Any hints where i should be looking? Thanks, 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>

4 years, 2 months

3
3
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Supporting encryption with ITS

by Fabian Schmidt

Hi George, I'm wondering if that would add value. To my understanding, ITS was never designed to be encrypted because of the way it's supposed to be set up. (It's Internal Trusted Storage.) I believe best practice is to place it in a "trusted" location, one that is ideally only accessible from Secure world, and also ideally on-die. If you then restrict outside access to the internal flash (JTAG, flash programmer ports,.), you're pretty golden, in that no unauthorized party should be able to read from or write to the ITS.* Let me know if I misunderstand anything about ITS or TrustZone, but that's my view. Maybe I'm painting an idealized picture. Greetings, Fabian Schmidt * at least short of a sophisticated physical attack or finding some loophole in TrustZone. From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Vasilakis, Georgios via TF-M Sent: Donnerstag, 23. September 2021 15:28 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [EXT] [TF-M] Supporting encryption with ITS Caution: EXT Email Hey all, Lately the requirement for an encrypted ITS solution is being asked from our customers and I would like to have a discussion here on how we can design this in a reasonable way. The first thought that came to my mind was to add the functionality to the ITS flash-fs layer. This layer contains file metadata in the its_file_meta_t structure and it should be possible to expand this to include additional crypto metadata (conditionally). This seems to be the less invasive change to me, even though it will introduce some increased memory usage since supporting encryption will mean that we cannot read the data in chunks anymore, we will have to use static buffers. At the same time, I looked at the PS partition since I knew that it has support for encryption. I believe that some core concepts of both solutions have similarities even though the code is quite different. For example, a file in ITS is similar to an object in PS and the (linear) list of file metadata in ITS is similar to the concept of the object table in PS. So, I think that it should be possible to design some generic-enough APIs that we can use for both the ITS and PS. Even though this will require some major refactoring in both partitions, it will decrease the code of these services which will probably decrease maintenance later. What are your thoughts on this? Regards, George

4 years, 2 months

4
4
0 0

TF-M v1.4.1 hotfix have been released

by Anton Komlev

Hello, Please be informed about the update v1.4.1 containing a hotfix for a vulnerability found in v1.4.0. The vulnerability exists in Profile Small only so please update to v1.4.1 version if you are currently using TF-M v1.4.0 and Profile Small. The detailed security advisory will be provided later. Best regards, Anton

4 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Supporting encryption with ITS

by Vasilakis, Georgios

Thank you both for the input! Andrej, you are correct that right now PS == Encrypted ITS but my understanding of the spec tells me that this will not always be the case. They do refer to platforms that will use external storage for PS (even though they still require ITS even in this case indeed). And just to clarify, I don't propose creating yet another ITS. The second thought that I had regarding the refactoring is mainly a common library that both ITS and PS can use for object handling. Fabian, I also understand it similarly, the ITS is supposed to be trusted on-chip storage which is more protected than PS. And the isolation from TrustZone in normal circumstances should be adequate (at the moment). But physical attacks these days are not that sophisticated anymore, and I think that this is the main driving force for this requirement. Regards, George ________________________________ From: Fabian Schmidt Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 3:50 PM To: Vasilakis, Georgios Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: RE: [TF-M] Supporting encryption with ITS Hi George, I’m wondering if that would add value. To my understanding, ITS was never designed to be encrypted because of the way it’s supposed to be set up. (It’s Internal Trusted Storage.) I believe best practice is to place it in a “trusted” location, one that is ideally only accessible from Secure world, and also ideally on-die. If you then restrict outside access to the internal flash (JTAG, flash programmer ports,…), you’re pretty golden, in that no unauthorized party should be able to read from or write to the ITS.* Let me know if I misunderstand anything about ITS or TrustZone, but that’s my view. Maybe I’m painting an idealized picture. Greetings, Fabian Schmidt * at least short of a sophisticated physical attack or finding some loophole in TrustZone… From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Vasilakis, Georgios via TF-M Sent: Donnerstag, 23. September 2021 15:28 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [EXT] [TF-M] Supporting encryption with ITS Caution: EXT Email Hey all, Lately the requirement for an encrypted ITS solution is being asked from our customers and I would like to have a discussion here on how we can design this in a reasonable way. The first thought that came to my mind was to add the functionality to the ITS flash-fs layer. This layer contains file metadata in the its_file_meta_t structure and it should be possible to expand this to include additional crypto metadata (conditionally). This seems to be the less invasive change to me, even though it will introduce some increased memory usage since supporting encryption will mean that we cannot read the data in chunks anymore, we will have to use static buffers. At the same time, I looked at the PS partition since I knew that it has support for encryption. I believe that some core concepts of both solutions have similarities even though the code is quite different. For example, a file in ITS is similar to an object in PS and the (linear) list of file metadata in ITS is similar to the concept of the object table in PS. So, I think that it should be possible to design some generic-enough APIs that we can use for both the ITS and PS. Even though this will require some major refactoring in both partitions, it will decrease the code of these services which will probably decrease maintenance later. What are your thoughts on this? Regards, George

4 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Supporting encryption with ITS

by Vasilakis, Georgios

Hey all, Lately the requirement for an encrypted ITS solution is being asked from our customers and I would like to have a discussion here on how we can design this in a reasonable way. The first thought that came to my mind was to add the functionality to the ITS flash-fs layer. This layer contains file metadata in the its_file_meta_t structure and it should be possible to expand this to include additional crypto metadata (conditionally). This seems to be the less invasive change to me, even though it will introduce some increased memory usage since supporting encryption will mean that we cannot read the data in chunks anymore, we will have to use static buffers. At the same time, I looked at the PS partition since I knew that it has support for encryption. I believe that some core concepts of both solutions have similarities even though the code is quite different. For example, a file in ITS is similar to an object in PS and the (linear) list of file metadata in ITS is similar to the concept of the object table in PS. So, I think that it should be possible to design some generic-enough APIs that we can use for both the ITS and PS. Even though this will require some major refactoring in both partitions, it will decrease the code of these services which will probably decrease maintenance later. What are your thoughts on this? Regards, George

4 years, 2 months

2
1
0 0

Use IPC Model to build by default

by Kevin Peng

Hi all, Please be noted that we are changing the build system to build IPC model by default instead of Library model for the following reasons: * The Library Model is not being developed anymore. It does not support for new FF-M features. * New comers to TF-M should be encouraged to start with the IPC model to have the better experiences. * Most importantly, Library Model will be replaced by SFN Model in future. Patch here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/11384 With this patch, the TFM_PSA_API is not intended for users to choose between library and IPC model anymore. To build Library model, please set TFM_LIB_MODEL to ON. The TFM_PSA_API=ON can be kept as is for the time being. So there would be impacts wherever Library Model is used. Please get prepared. Thanks. Best Regards, Kevin

4 years, 2 months

1
2
0 0

Re: [TF-M] [Request Platform Support] Abstracted MMIO HAL

by Ken Liu

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> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 5:18 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 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

4 years, 2 months

5
6
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M