Hi,
I have tried the RC1 and RC2 on our platform, the BL5340 (nRF5340-based), which I am testing by building with the following:
cmake -DTFM_PLATFORM=lairdconnectivity/bl5340_dvk_cpuapp -GNinja -DTFM_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=../toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DTEST_S=on -DTEST_NS=on -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=debug -DPS_TEST_NV_COUNTERS=on ..
And upon starting the non-secure tests, a security violation occurs which reboots the module. Output from secure core:
Test suite 'Crypto secure interface tests (TFM_S_CRYPTO_TEST_1XXX)' has PASSED
Test suite 'Initial Attestation Service secure interface tests(TFM_S_ATTEST_TEST_1XXX)' has PASSED
Test suite 'Platform Service Secure interface tests(TFM_S_PLATFORM_TEST_1XXX)' has PASSED
Test suite 'Audit Logging secure interface test (TFM_S_AUDIT_TEST_1XXX)' has PASSED
*** End of Secure test suites ***
Security violation when calling secure API
[INF] Starting bootloader
[INF] Primary image: magic=good, swap_type=0x1, copy_done=0x3, image_ok=0x3
[INF] Scratch: magic=unset, swap_type=0x1, copy_done=0x3, image_ok=0x3
[INF] Boot source: primary slot
Output from non-secure core:
Non-Secure system starting...
#### Execute test suites for the Non-secure area ####
Running Test Suite PSA protected storage NS interface tests (TFM_NS_PS_TEST_1XXX)...
> Executing 'TFM_NS_PS_TEST_1001'
Description: 'Set interface'
Non-Secure system starting...
So something that has changed from 1.3 to 1.4 seems to have broken our platform.
Thanks,
Jamie
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M
Sent: 26 July 2021 09:50
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M v1.4.0 release started
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Be careful with attachments and links.
Hi,
All TF-M repositories are updated with TF-Mv1.4.0-RC2 tag.
The changes are minimal and shall not invalidate the tests, already done.
Please use this tag for new tests and report any issues found by the end of July 30.
Thanks and good luck,
Anton
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 11:25 AM
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] TF-M v1.4.0 release started
Hi,
All TF-M repositories are tagged with TF-Mv1.4.0-RC1 tag.
Code is frozen now for the release candidate testing. Note that changes to other repositories are still possible during that time.
Please use this tag for your tests and report any issues found by the end of July 30.
Thanks and good luck,
Anton
THIS MESSAGE, ANY ATTACHMENT(S), AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE PROPRIETARY TO LAIRD CONNECTIVITY, INC. AND/OR ANOTHER PARTY, AND MAY FURTHER BE INTENDED TO BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS, AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER BY RETURN EMAIL. THIS MESSAGE AND ITS CONTENTS ARE THE PROPERTY OF LAIRD CONNECTIVITY, INC. AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF LAIRD CONNECTIVITY, INC.
Hi Chris,
Your command works well also on Windows, Clang v6.16.1, although had to modify -G"Unix Makefiles".
Hope it helps,
Anton
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David Hu via TF-M
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 12:59 AM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Chris.Brand(a)infineon.com; Raef Coles <Raef.Coles(a)arm.com>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] Failure building Musca B1 SE with armclang on Linux
Hi Chris,
Sorry for the trouble.
I tried your build command and it worked with Armclang 6.14 on my ubuntu desktop.
It looks like CMAKE_C_COMPILER_ID doesn't receive the correct toolchain ID.
Probably @Raef can help?
Best regards,
Hu Ziji
________________________________
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> on behalf of chris.brand--- via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 3:08 AM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Subject: [TF-M] Failure building Musca B1 SE with armclang on Linux
My build command is this:
cmake -S . -B build_musca_se_ARMCLANG_Debug '-GUnix Makefiles' -DTFM_PLATFORM=arm/musca_b1/secure_enclave -DTFM_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_ARMCLANG.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=2 -DTFM_PSA_API=ON -DFORWARD_PROT_MSG=ON -DTFM_PROFILE=profile_medium
The tree I'm building is hash 76939d7ca9cea03b07d3617fbbdca09947d5cdf9, and the toolchain is version 6.13. I see the same error with version 6.12.
The error message I get is this:
[100%] Built target tfm_test_repo-populate
gmake[1]: Leaving directory '/lhome/cbrand/work/trees_2/psoc6_atfm/trusted-firmware-m/build_musca_se_ARMCLANG_Debug/lib/ext/tfm_test_repo-subbuild'
/lhome/cbrand/.local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/cmake/data/bin/cmake -E cmake_progress_start /lhome/cbrand/work/trees_2/psoc6_atfm/trusted-firmware-m/build_musca_se_ARMCLANG_Debug/lib/ext/tfm_test_repo-subbuild/CMakeFiles 0
CMake Error at lib/ext/CMSIS_5/CMakeLists.txt:25 (message):
does not have CMSIS RTX static libraries set up
-- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!
I wonder whether it might be a toolchain configuration issue, but I'm pretty sure that I've built with this same toolchain on this same machine in the past...
Gcc build with the same source and options works fine.
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>
Hi Chris,
Sorry for the trouble.
I tried your build command and it worked with Armclang 6.14 on my ubuntu desktop.
It looks like CMAKE_C_COMPILER_ID doesn't receive the correct toolchain ID.
Probably @Raef can help?
Best regards,
Hu Ziji
________________________________
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of chris.brand--- via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 3:08 AM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [TF-M] Failure building Musca B1 SE with armclang on Linux
My build command is this:
cmake -S . -B build_musca_se_ARMCLANG_Debug '-GUnix Makefiles' -DTFM_PLATFORM=arm/musca_b1/secure_enclave -DTFM_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_ARMCLANG.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=2 -DTFM_PSA_API=ON -DFORWARD_PROT_MSG=ON -DTFM_PROFILE=profile_medium
The tree I'm building is hash 76939d7ca9cea03b07d3617fbbdca09947d5cdf9, and the toolchain is version 6.13. I see the same error with version 6.12.
The error message I get is this:
[100%] Built target tfm_test_repo-populate
gmake[1]: Leaving directory '/lhome/cbrand/work/trees_2/psoc6_atfm/trusted-firmware-m/build_musca_se_ARMCLANG_Debug/lib/ext/tfm_test_repo-subbuild'
/lhome/cbrand/.local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/cmake/data/bin/cmake -E cmake_progress_start /lhome/cbrand/work/trees_2/psoc6_atfm/trusted-firmware-m/build_musca_se_ARMCLANG_Debug/lib/ext/tfm_test_repo-subbuild/CMakeFiles 0
CMake Error at lib/ext/CMSIS_5/CMakeLists.txt:25 (message):
does not have CMSIS RTX static libraries set up
-- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!
I wonder whether it might be a toolchain configuration issue, but I'm pretty sure that I've built with this same toolchain on this same machine in the past...
Gcc build with the same source and options works fine.
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>
My build command is this:
cmake -S . -B build_musca_se_ARMCLANG_Debug '-GUnix Makefiles' -DTFM_PLATFORM=arm/musca_b1/secure_enclave -DTFM_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_ARMCLANG.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=2 -DTFM_PSA_API=ON -DFORWARD_PROT_MSG=ON -DTFM_PROFILE=profile_medium
The tree I'm building is hash 76939d7ca9cea03b07d3617fbbdca09947d5cdf9, and the toolchain is version 6.13. I see the same error with version 6.12.
The error message I get is this:
[100%] Built target tfm_test_repo-populate
gmake[1]: Leaving directory '/lhome/cbrand/work/trees_2/psoc6_atfm/trusted-firmware-m/build_musca_se_ARMCLANG_Debug/lib/ext/tfm_test_repo-subbuild'
/lhome/cbrand/.local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/cmake/data/bin/cmake -E cmake_progress_start /lhome/cbrand/work/trees_2/psoc6_atfm/trusted-firmware-m/build_musca_se_ARMCLANG_Debug/lib/ext/tfm_test_repo-subbuild/CMakeFiles 0
CMake Error at lib/ext/CMSIS_5/CMakeLists.txt:25 (message):
does not have CMSIS RTX static libraries set up
-- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!
I wonder whether it might be a toolchain configuration issue, but I'm pretty sure that I've built with this same toolchain on this same machine in the past...
Gcc build with the same source and options works fine.
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>
Hello Suresh,
I have no access to a B1 target, which is the reason no IAR port exists.
Cheers,
Thomas
24 juli 2021 kl. 22:39 skrev Suresh Marisetty via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>:
Hi,
One of the requests that I have is how the code size differs between GCC and IAR for the Musca-B1 SE build.
However, it appears from the documentation that IAR is not supported on Musca-B1. So, I am wondering if anybody can provide some insight on the size from IAR.
And here are the TF-M image sizes as of now with GCC in release mode:
SE: ~185 KiB code flash and ~63 KiB RAM
Host: ~22 KiB code flash and ~16 KiB RAM
(a few more KiB needed for the images in flash for image header and trailer if loaded by mcuboot)
IAR?
thanks
Suresh Marisetty
Infineon Semiconductor Corporation
From: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 4, 2021 11:37 PM
To: Marisetty Suresh (CYSC CSS ICW SW SSE) <Suresh.Marisetty(a)infineon.com>; Mark Horvath <Mark.Horvath(a)arm.com>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: RE: Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation - code size analysis
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you validate it is safe<https://goto.infineon.com/SocialEngineering>.
Hi Suresh,
1. Please check t Profile Medium and Profile Large design documents below. The ciphers supported are listed in the document.
Profile Medium: https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/docs/technical_references/profi…
Profile Large: https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/docs/technical_references/profi…
1. I don’t think the software countermeasures against physical attacks are enabled in Musca-B1 SE, by default. Mark, please correct me if I misunderstand it.
TF-M implements a Fault Inject Hardening (FIH) library as software countermeasure to mitigate physical attacks.
FIH is enabled as Medium Profile in Profile Large by default. You can set `TFM_FIH_PROFILE` as OFF to disable FIH features.
FIH is not implemented by mebd TLS or CC312. It consists of protections of TF-M SPM critical routine and platform specific isolation configuration.
Please check FIH design document: https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/docs/technical_references/tfm_p…
Compared to Profile Medium, Profile Large enables more cryptographic algorithms support and FIH library.
It may also include more configurations of higher isolation.
Best regards,
Hu Ziji
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Suresh Marisetty via TF-M
Sent: Sunday, July 4, 2021 2:26 AM
To: Mark Horvath <Mark.Horvath(a)arm.com<mailto:Mark.Horvath@arm.com>>; 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] Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation - code size analysis
Hi Mark,
Wondering if someone can provide more visibility in the following in regards to the SE build with profile medium and large:
1. What ciphers are supported in medium vs. large (I see the size of the code bloats up almost twice from 30 to 60K approx) – observation from size of libmbedcrypto and libcrypto_service_cc312 – any clear documentation on this or a link would be helpful (besides code review)
2. When the SE is built for the large profile, assume it also includes “Software countermeasures against physical attacks” since it is offloading to the CC-312
* Is there a way to build the large profile without physical attack counter-measures?
* While library are these countermeasures implemented in (libmbed or lib_cc312)?
1. On our initial analysis, for a medium profile these two libraries appears to be 30K-33K in size each and is this in the right ballpark? (with minsizerel)
I assume the code size increase is due to additional cipher support + physical attack countermeasures. Correct me otherwise.
thanks
Suresh Marisetty
Infineon Semiconductor Corporation
From: Mark Horvath <Mark.Horvath(a)arm.com<mailto:Mark.Horvath@arm.com>>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 5:30 AM
To: Marisetty Suresh (CYSC CSS ICW SW SSE) <Suresh.Marisetty(a)infineon.com<mailto:Suresh.Marisetty@infineon.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>
Subject: Re: Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you validate it is safe<https://goto.infineon.com/SocialEngineering>.
Hi Suresh,
Yes, by default the cc312 acceleration is turned on at build time for SE, and the algorithms will be handled by HW instead of the SW implementation. If you would like to use SW crypto instead you can pass the HW_ACCELERATOR="OFF" flag to cmake when building the SE TF-M instance.
And here are the TF-M image sizes as of now with GCC in release mode:
SE: ~185 KiB code flash and ~63 KiB RAM
Host: ~22 KiB code flash and ~16 KiB RAM
(a few more KiB needed for the images in flash for image header and trailer if loaded by mcuboot)
Best regards,
Mark
________________________________
From: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Hu@arm.com>>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 5:26 AM
To: Suresh.Marisetty(a)infineon.com<mailto:Suresh.Marisetty@infineon.com> <Suresh.Marisetty(a)infineon.com<mailto:Suresh.Marisetty@infineon.com>>; Tamas Ban <Tamas.Ban(a)arm.com<mailto:Tamas.Ban@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>; Mark Horvath <Mark.Horvath(a)arm.com<mailto:Mark.Horvath@arm.com>>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>
Subject: RE: Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation
Hi @Mark Horvath<mailto:Mark.Horvath@arm.com>,
Could you please help take a look at the following questions about Musca-B1 SE?
Thanks 😊
Best regards,
Hu Ziji
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Suresh Marisetty via TF-M
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 6:04 AM
To: Tamas Ban <Tamas.Ban(a)arm.com<mailto:Tamas.Ban@arm.com>>; 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] Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation
Hi Tamas,
The following is good information. A few questions:
1. Is it correct to state that for the SE, the PSA RoT services do not have any software Crypto implementation, but leverage from CC-312?
2. What is the size of the TFM on the host (M33) with only PSA RoT service proxy with redirection to SE
3. Just trying to understand the TFM image size requirements on M33 vs. SE
4. How much of the Flash region/code Executed In Place vs. execution out of SRAM (XIP)
thanks
Suresh Marisetty
Infineon Semiconductor Corporation
From: Tamas Ban <Tamas.Ban(a)arm.com<mailto:Tamas.Ban@arm.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 12:40 AM
To: Marisetty Suresh (CYSC CSS ICW SW SSE) <Suresh.Marisetty(a)infineon.com<mailto:Suresh.Marisetty@infineon.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>
Subject: RE: Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you validate it is safe<https://goto.infineon.com/SocialEngineering>.
Hi Suresh,
Here is a link how to build images to Musca-B1 SE:
https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/platform/e…
I have built with GCC and MinSizeRel build type:
Profile Medium:
Memory region Used Size Region Size %age Used
FLASH: 101464 B 381 KB 26.01%
RAM: 61304 B 64 KB 93.54%
[100%] Built target tfm_s
Profile Large:
Memory region Used Size Region Size %age Used
FLASH: 170448 B 381 KB 43.69%
RAM: 62980 B 64 KB 96.10%
[ 97%] Built target tfm_s
The profiles means different capabilities of TF-M, they were introduced to support constrained devices as well, with limited capability.
There is a detailed description about the profiles here:
https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/docs/techn…
BR,
Tamas
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Suresh Marisetty via TF-M
Sent: 2021. április 29., csütörtök 21:49
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [TF-M] Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation
I am following up on a question that came up on the TFM Core and MCUBoot image sizes that is built for SE on Musca-B1.
We are trying to figure out the resource requirements for SE, to be able to host the TF-M as suggested in the slides below. Wondering if anyone throw more light on the RAM/FLASH requirements for it.
Also, does the TFM profile small/medium/large map to this at all or is it different from them. Also, what’s are the estimated latencies of boot on SE with all the Flash accesses, etc.
https://www.trustedfirmware.org/docs/Musca-B1-Secure-Enclave-Solution.pdfhttps://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/platform/e…
Any info on this would be appreciated.
thanks
Suresh Marisetty
Infineon Semiconductor Corporation
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
Hi,
All TF-M repositories are updated with TF-Mv1.4.0-RC2 tag.
The changes are minimal and shall not invalidate the tests, already done.
Please use this tag for new tests and report any issues found by the end of July 30.
Thanks and good luck,
Anton
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 11:25 AM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: [TF-M] TF-M v1.4.0 release started
Hi,
All TF-M repositories are tagged with TF-Mv1.4.0-RC1 tag.
Code is frozen now for the release candidate testing. Note that changes to other repositories are still possible during that time.
Please use this tag for your tests and report any issues found by the end of July 30.
Thanks and good luck,
Anton
Hi Suresh,
1. Please check t Profile Medium and Profile Large design documents below. The ciphers supported are listed in the document.
Profile Medium: https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/docs/technical_references/profi…
Profile Large: https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/docs/technical_references/profi…
1. I don’t think the software countermeasures against physical attacks are enabled in Musca-B1 SE, by default. Mark, please correct me if I misunderstand it.
TF-M implements a Fault Inject Hardening (FIH) library as software countermeasure to mitigate physical attacks.
FIH is enabled as Medium Profile in Profile Large by default. You can set `TFM_FIH_PROFILE` as OFF to disable FIH features.
FIH is not implemented by mebd TLS or CC312. It consists of protections of TF-M SPM critical routine and platform specific isolation configuration.
Please check FIH design document: https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/docs/technical_references/tfm_p…
Compared to Profile Medium, Profile Large enables more cryptographic algorithms support and FIH library.
It may also include more configurations of higher isolation.
Best regards,
Hu Ziji
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Suresh Marisetty via TF-M
Sent: Sunday, July 4, 2021 2:26 AM
To: Mark Horvath <Mark.Horvath(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: [TF-M] Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation - code size analysis
Hi Mark,
Wondering if someone can provide more visibility in the following in regards to the SE build with profile medium and large:
1. What ciphers are supported in medium vs. large (I see the size of the code bloats up almost twice from 30 to 60K approx) – observation from size of libmbedcrypto and libcrypto_service_cc312 – any clear documentation on this or a link would be helpful (besides code review)
2. When the SE is built for the large profile, assume it also includes “Software countermeasures against physical attacks” since it is offloading to the CC-312
* Is there a way to build the large profile without physical attack counter-measures?
* While library are these countermeasures implemented in (libmbed or lib_cc312)?
3. On our initial analysis, for a medium profile these two libraries appears to be 30K-33K in size each and is this in the right ballpark? (with minsizerel)
I assume the code size increase is due to additional cipher support + physical attack countermeasures. Correct me otherwise.
thanks
Suresh Marisetty
Infineon Semiconductor Corporation
From: Mark Horvath <Mark.Horvath(a)arm.com<mailto:Mark.Horvath@arm.com>>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 5:30 AM
To: Marisetty Suresh (CYSC CSS ICW SW SSE) <Suresh.Marisetty(a)infineon.com<mailto:Suresh.Marisetty@infineon.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>
Subject: Re: Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you validate it is safe<https://goto.infineon.com/SocialEngineering>.
Hi Suresh,
Yes, by default the cc312 acceleration is turned on at build time for SE, and the algorithms will be handled by HW instead of the SW implementation. If you would like to use SW crypto instead you can pass the HW_ACCELERATOR="OFF" flag to cmake when building the SE TF-M instance.
And here are the TF-M image sizes as of now with GCC in release mode:
SE: ~185 KiB code flash and ~63 KiB RAM
Host: ~22 KiB code flash and ~16 KiB RAM
(a few more KiB needed for the images in flash for image header and trailer if loaded by mcuboot)
Best regards,
Mark
________________________________
From: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Hu@arm.com>>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 5:26 AM
To: Suresh.Marisetty(a)infineon.com<mailto:Suresh.Marisetty@infineon.com> <Suresh.Marisetty(a)infineon.com<mailto:Suresh.Marisetty@infineon.com>>; Tamas Ban <Tamas.Ban(a)arm.com<mailto:Tamas.Ban@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>; Mark Horvath <Mark.Horvath(a)arm.com<mailto:Mark.Horvath@arm.com>>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>
Subject: RE: Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation
Hi @Mark Horvath<mailto:Mark.Horvath@arm.com>,
Could you please help take a look at the following questions about Musca-B1 SE?
Thanks 😊
Best regards,
Hu Ziji
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Suresh Marisetty via TF-M
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 6:04 AM
To: Tamas Ban <Tamas.Ban(a)arm.com<mailto:Tamas.Ban@arm.com>>; 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] Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation
Hi Tamas,
The following is good information. A few questions:
1. Is it correct to state that for the SE, the PSA RoT services do not have any software Crypto implementation, but leverage from CC-312?
2. What is the size of the TFM on the host (M33) with only PSA RoT service proxy with redirection to SE
3. Just trying to understand the TFM image size requirements on M33 vs. SE
4. How much of the Flash region/code Executed In Place vs. execution out of SRAM (XIP)
thanks
Suresh Marisetty
Infineon Semiconductor Corporation
From: Tamas Ban <Tamas.Ban(a)arm.com<mailto:Tamas.Ban@arm.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 12:40 AM
To: Marisetty Suresh (CYSC CSS ICW SW SSE) <Suresh.Marisetty(a)infineon.com<mailto:Suresh.Marisetty@infineon.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>
Subject: RE: Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you validate it is safe<https://goto.infineon.com/SocialEngineering>.
Hi Suresh,
Here is a link how to build images to Musca-B1 SE:
https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/platform/e…
I have built with GCC and MinSizeRel build type:
Profile Medium:
Memory region Used Size Region Size %age Used
FLASH: 101464 B 381 KB 26.01%
RAM: 61304 B 64 KB 93.54%
[100%] Built target tfm_s
Profile Large:
Memory region Used Size Region Size %age Used
FLASH: 170448 B 381 KB 43.69%
RAM: 62980 B 64 KB 96.10%
[ 97%] Built target tfm_s
The profiles means different capabilities of TF-M, they were introduced to support constrained devices as well, with limited capability.
There is a detailed description about the profiles here:
https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/docs/techn…
BR,
Tamas
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Suresh Marisetty via TF-M
Sent: 2021. április 29., csütörtök 21:49
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [TF-M] Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation
I am following up on a question that came up on the TFM Core and MCUBoot image sizes that is built for SE on Musca-B1.
We are trying to figure out the resource requirements for SE, to be able to host the TF-M as suggested in the slides below. Wondering if anyone throw more light on the RAM/FLASH requirements for it.
Also, does the TFM profile small/medium/large map to this at all or is it different from them. Also, what’s are the estimated latencies of boot on SE with all the Flash accesses, etc.
https://www.trustedfirmware.org/docs/Musca-B1-Secure-Enclave-Solution.pdfhttps://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/platform/e…
Any info on this would be appreciated.
thanks
Suresh Marisetty
Infineon Semiconductor Corporation
Hi,
The agenda for the forum:
1. TF-M Porting guide. New documentation<https://tf-m-user-guide.trustedfirmware.org/docs/integration_guide/porting_…> prepared By Robert Wakim.
2. AOB
Thanks,
Anton
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 6:57 PM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - July 22
Hi,
The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, July 22 7:00-8:00 UTC (Asia 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
Hi,
All TF-M repositories are tagged with TF-Mv1.4.0-RC1 tag.
Code is frozen now for the release candidate testing. Note that changes to other repositories are still possible during that time.
Please use this tag for your tests and report any issues found by the end of July 30.
Thanks and good luck,
Anton