- TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

by Matt

Hi all TFM experts, 近期我在移植psa-arch-tests到我们的板子上，想看下functional api的测试结果。 TFM用的是1.1的版本，psa-arch-tests 用的是master分支，代码取到 1f96094734897674fa907fba2050bc52e1b3d0fe 这个commit. mbedtls使用的分支是2.23.0。在测试crypto 的 c021 ，即psa_key_derivation_output_key的测试时，看结果是FAIL的，看了下c021下的test_data.h，check1数组前面两项的信息如下， static const test_data check1[] = { {"Test psa_key_derivation_output_key - Key\n", PSA_KEY_TYPE_DERIVE, {0x49, 0x8E, 0xC7, 0x7D, 0x01, 0x95, 0x0D, 0x94, 0x2C, 0x16, 0xA5, 0x3E, 0x99, 0x5F, 0xC9, 0x77}, AES_16B_KEY_SIZE, PSA_KEY_USAGE_DERIVE, PSA_ALG_KEY_AGREEMENT(PSA_ALG_ECDH, PSA_ALG_HKDF(PSA_ALG_SHA_256)), PSA_KEY_DERIVATION_INPUT_SECRET, 32, {0}, 0, PSA_KEY_TYPE_AES, BYTES_TO_BITS(AES_32B_KEY_SIZE), PSA_KEY_USAGE_EXPORT, PSA_ALG_CTR, PSA_SUCCESS }, {"Test psa_key_derivation_output_key - Info\n", PSA_KEY_TYPE_DERIVE, {0x49, 0x8E, 0xC7, 0x7D, 0x01, 0x95, 0x0D, 0x94, 0x2C, 0x16, 0xA5, 0x3E, 0x99, 0x5F, 0xC9, 0x77}, AES_16B_KEY_SIZE, PSA_KEY_USAGE_DERIVE, PSA_ALG_KEY_AGREEMENT(PSA_ALG_ECDH, PSA_ALG_HKDF(PSA_ALG_SHA_256)), PSA_KEY_DERIVATION_INPUT_INFO, 32, "This is the info", 16, PSA_KEY_TYPE_AES, BYTES_TO_BITS(AES_32B_KEY_SIZE), PSA_KEY_USAGE_EXPORT, PSA_ALG_CTR, PSA_SUCCESS }, 秘钥派生的算法使用的是PSA_ALG_HKDF(PSA_ALG_SHA_256)，在mbedtls库中，使用HKDF算法时，在读取输出即调用 psa_key_derivation_output_bytes或者psa_key_derivation_output_key时，内部调用到 psa_key_derivation_hkdf_read时会检查两个必要的条件，一个是是否已输入key，一个是是否已输入info，如果只输入一个，就返回BAD_STATE。但是上面 check1的前两项都是只输入一个项， check1的第一项是只输入key, 第二项是只输入info，所以应该返回 BAD_STATE，不应该是 PSA_SUCCESS。在psa arch tests crypto的 c020测试中早期的版本也有类似的问题，不过最新的代码已变化为输入key和info 这两个量后才去读取派生的结果。在网上也了解了下HKDF的介绍，也提到了key和info这两个必要的输入：如果使用TFM默认的 mbedtls库，crypto的这个测试应该是通不过的，因为mbedtls最新的版本，在读取派生结果时，依然要检测key和info是否都已输入。请帮check下，是我理解的不对，还是crypto 的 c021 这个case不适合mbedtls软算法库。以上信息，感谢TFM的各位专家，期盼你们的回复谢谢！

3 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Static check framework for TF-M

by Salome Thirot

Hi all, Hugo L'Hostis and I have written a series of patches to enable various checks that can be done locally before committing the code, they will be added in the tf-m-tools repository. The patches are the following, any comment is welcome: cppcheck: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tools/+/10009/8 clang-format: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tools/+/10463/2 copyright headers: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tools/+/10464/2 Regards, Salome

3 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Remove Customized Region Name Prefix in Linker Scripts

by Andrej Butok

This is the "good practice" to add prefixes to global names. From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Xinyu Zhang via TF-M Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 12:00 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Remove Customized Region Name Prefix in Linker Scripts Hi, The existing linker definitions abuse prefixes such as ER_ and TFM_. Some names do not have a clear scope, which reduces the readability. Here are some patches to address the problem: * Patch 10383 <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr ustedfirmware.org%2Fc%2FTF-M%2Ftrusted-firmware-m%2F%2B%2F10383&data=04%7C01 %7Candrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C8c57174d86d447802a4908d936f6d729%7C686ea1d3bc2b4 c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637601256068960339%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =G8Jf5YT4mptpeBUw8U7YkVbSKGvgXXtC3G8wRBqbJvY%3D&reserved=0> : TFM_UNPRIV_CODE --> UNPRIV_CODE * Patch 10384 <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr ustedfirmware.org%2Fc%2FTF-M%2Ftrusted-firmware-m%2F%2B%2F10384&data=04%7C01 %7Candrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C8c57174d86d447802a4908d936f6d729%7C686ea1d3bc2b4 c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637601256068970289%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =BSU1cXFeV61T48OO68FHJVFxD4tnSHz%2FmndTUSWjLOE%3D&reserved=0> : TFM_SP_LOAD_LIST --> SP_LOAD_LIST * Patch 10385 <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr ustedfirmware.org%2Fc%2FTF-M%2Ftrusted-firmware-m%2F%2B%2F10385&data=04%7C01 %7Candrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C8c57174d86d447802a4908d936f6d729%7C686ea1d3bc2b4 c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637601256068970289%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata =PYVkbSu05KgbqdUk%2FdCC7MAAg3KoNPKYXA4C1PrdnK0%3D&reserved=0> : TFM_SECURE_* --> SECURE_* Please help to put comments and inform us if your platforms couple tightly with the symbols defined in LD. Thanks, Xinyu

3 years, 6 months

2
1
0 0

Remove Customized Region Name Prefix in Linker Scripts

by Xinyu Zhang

Hi, The existing linker definitions abuse prefixes such as ER_ and TFM_. Some names do not have a clear scope, which reduces the readability. Here are some patches to address the problem: * Patch 10383<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/10383>: TFM_UNPRIV_CODE --> UNPRIV_CODE * Patch 10384<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/10384>: TFM_SP_LOAD_LIST --> SP_LOAD_LIST * Patch 10385<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/10385>: TFM_SECURE_* --> SECURE_* Please help to put comments and inform us if your platforms couple tightly with the symbols defined in LD. Thanks, Xinyu

3 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - June 24

by Anton Komlev

HI, Having no declared topics for the forum, let's discuss the PSA Audit and TF-M logs features and scope to avoid possible confusion. Thanks and best regards, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 4:07 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - June 24 Hi, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, June 24 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

3 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Deprecate 'partitions/audit_logging' and its related tests

by Reed Hinkel

Hello Team: Audit Logging is a requirement for a number of e2e security schemes including Microsoft Azure. The implementation may need a bit of use case specific or customer steering to get back on track to demonstrating it will fit the bill for e2e usage. I would think carefully about the strategy here because I fully expect that the moment it is deprecated a business need for it to exist will be raised. Please carefully consider how to add support back in quickly if it is deprecated now, though I would personally like to see it retained. All the best! Reed From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Andrej Butok via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Reply-To: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com> Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 5:56 AM To: Ken Liu <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com> Cc: "tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Deprecate 'partitions/audit_logging' and its related tests Hi Ken > Or any doubts about depreciating it? It is not used because its implementation is not finished, the current implementation is only for PSA L1 and not supported by IPC. This is not enough for certification. The Log service is optimally required by the PSA Certification. If you going to deprecate it, first delete the requirement from the PSA L2&L3 Certification profiles. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:46 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Deprecate 'partitions/audit_logging' and its related tests Hi, The component name under this folder is ‘Audit logging’, and: * There is no explicit specification or requirements for it, and its functionality is as a simple log collector (and looks no one is using it). * It supported under the library model only. And it is meaningless to move to IPC because of this. * It costs extra maintenance effort in test cases and partition code. So a plan is to deprecate this folder and its related test cases; will create a new one when the specification or requirements are explicitly defined. Question here is: Anyone is using this service? Or any doubts about depreciating it? Will collect the response and broadcast it at 25th Jun. Thanks. /Ken

3 years, 6 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M API tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() has been removed

by David Hu

Hi, This secure test service, as I mentioned in the previous email, is for test purpose only. I’d like to recommend to implement a dedicated secure service to co-work with TF-M Initial Attestation service, to fulfil the specific use cases. This test service can be an example. The factory NS app and the dedicated secure service may work in a special device lifecycle. It may require additional mechanism to protect it from accesses in improper lifecycle. It may not be reasonable to mix an API with special purpose with TF-M Initial Attestation service following PSA Attestation API. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Tamas Ban via TF-M Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 3:05 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M API tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() has been removed Hi, The API is not fully disappeared, it still supported by a secure test service which can be optionally enabled at build time: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/10226/ https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tests/+/10228 I think in this way a factory version of TF-M still can be used to export the public key, create a certificate for it (factory NS app) and pass on securely to the verification party to register the database. Kevin: Would this solution still satisfy your use case in mind? My thoughts regarding having the API part of the TF-M secure runtime (original solution): - I expect its usage is limited. Only at the beginning of device lifetime. * Removal of the API can reduce code size. * I cannot see how the API can be abused. Its usage can be clarified in the documentation. BR, Tamas From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of David Hu via TF-M Sent: 2021. június 18., péntek 7:18 To: Kevin Townsend (kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org<mailto:kevin.townsend@linaro.org>) <kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org<mailto:kevin.townsend@linaro.org>>; 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] TF-M API tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() has been removed Hi Kevin, In a simplified common attestation protocol, the attestation verifier/validation entity (VE) uses the attestation public key to verify the attestation token sent from the device. The attestation VE is unable to verify the token, if it is not provided with the public key in advance. The public key fetched in device runtime is untrustworthy. Please check the details in Initial Attestation section in PSA Platform Security Model spec. On the other hand, usually clients on device don’t need attestation public key during attestation protocol execution. It is unnecessary to let Initial Attestation service to export IAK public key to other clients. Putting a dedicated API in attestation service to export public key can confuse developers. Sorry I’m not familiar with other use cases in which the attestation public key might be required and fetched on device in runtime. Those, if exist, may not be the typical use cases of TF-M Initial Attestation service. I’d suggest to implement dedicated secure services, to fulfill your requirement and use cases, relying on TF-M Initial Attestation. It is more flexible and convenient than mixing the public key fetch with TF-M Initial Attestation service. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: Kevin Townsend <kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org<mailto:kevin.townsend@linaro.org>> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 11:23 PM To: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Hu@arm.com>> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M API tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() has been removed Hi, On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 16:49, David Hu via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi all, Please note that API tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() has been removed from TF-M Initial Attestation service. tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() was defined by TF-M to retrieve Initial Attestation Key (IAK) public key in runtime. It is not defined by PSA Attestation API spec. It was designed for test purpose only but was always enabled in Initial Attestation service. TF-M regression tests called tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() in runtime to retrieve IAK public key to verify the Initial Attestation Token (IAK) generated by Initial Attestation service. However, such a test implementation doesn’t fully align with common attestation protocols, in which the public key is usually distributed to the verifier when the device is deployed or registered. This API can be misleading and it concerned developers that it may be abused in actual production. Can you detail the use case(s) where you feel deriving the public key inside TF-M or the NS firmware can be abused? Personally, I find it quite useful to be able to generate the IAK randomly and retrieve the public key, which can safely be provided to the NS application to be passed on the end users. Providing the IAK public-key during factory provisioning assumes a very specific workflow that I don't think every TF-M product is likely to adopt. There are many other instances where we don't scrupulously follow the PSA APIs, so I'm not sure why this example should be highlighted, and what seems like a useful feature to me removed. If you can help me better understand the security concerns here, though, I can of course be persuaded otherwise! Best regards, Kevin

3 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M API tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() has been removed

by Tamas Ban

Hi, The API is not fully disappeared, it still supported by a secure test service which can be optionally enabled at build time: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/10226/ https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/tf-m-tests/+/10228 I think in this way a factory version of TF-M still can be used to export the public key, create a certificate for it (factory NS app) and pass on securely to the verification party to register the database. Kevin: Would this solution still satisfy your use case in mind? My thoughts regarding having the API part of the TF-M secure runtime (original solution): - I expect its usage is limited. Only at the beginning of device lifetime. * Removal of the API can reduce code size. * I cannot see how the API can be abused. Its usage can be clarified in the documentation. BR, Tamas From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David Hu via TF-M Sent: 2021. június 18., péntek 7:18 To: Kevin Townsend (kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org) <kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M API tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() has been removed Hi Kevin, In a simplified common attestation protocol, the attestation verifier/validation entity (VE) uses the attestation public key to verify the attestation token sent from the device. The attestation VE is unable to verify the token, if it is not provided with the public key in advance. The public key fetched in device runtime is untrustworthy. Please check the details in Initial Attestation section in PSA Platform Security Model spec. On the other hand, usually clients on device don’t need attestation public key during attestation protocol execution. It is unnecessary to let Initial Attestation service to export IAK public key to other clients. Putting a dedicated API in attestation service to export public key can confuse developers. Sorry I’m not familiar with other use cases in which the attestation public key might be required and fetched on device in runtime. Those, if exist, may not be the typical use cases of TF-M Initial Attestation service. I’d suggest to implement dedicated secure services, to fulfill your requirement and use cases, relying on TF-M Initial Attestation. It is more flexible and convenient than mixing the public key fetch with TF-M Initial Attestation service. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: Kevin Townsend <kevin.townsend(a)linaro.org<mailto:kevin.townsend@linaro.org>> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 11:23 PM To: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Hu@arm.com>> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TF-M API tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() has been removed Hi, On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 16:49, David Hu via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi all, Please note that API tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() has been removed from TF-M Initial Attestation service. tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() was defined by TF-M to retrieve Initial Attestation Key (IAK) public key in runtime. It is not defined by PSA Attestation API spec. It was designed for test purpose only but was always enabled in Initial Attestation service. TF-M regression tests called tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() in runtime to retrieve IAK public key to verify the Initial Attestation Token (IAK) generated by Initial Attestation service. However, such a test implementation doesn’t fully align with common attestation protocols, in which the public key is usually distributed to the verifier when the device is deployed or registered. This API can be misleading and it concerned developers that it may be abused in actual production. Can you detail the use case(s) where you feel deriving the public key inside TF-M or the NS firmware can be abused? Personally, I find it quite useful to be able to generate the IAK randomly and retrieve the public key, which can safely be provided to the NS application to be passed on the end users. Providing the IAK public-key during factory provisioning assumes a very specific workflow that I don't think every TF-M product is likely to adopt. There are many other instances where we don't scrupulously follow the PSA APIs, so I'm not sure why this example should be highlighted, and what seems like a useful feature to me removed. If you can help me better understand the security concerns here, though, I can of course be persuaded otherwise! Best regards, Kevin

3 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M API tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() has been removed

by Kevin Townsend

Hi, On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 16:49, David Hu via TF-M < tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Please note that API tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() has been removed > from TF-M Initial Attestation service. > > > > tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() was defined by TF-M to retrieve > Initial Attestation Key (IAK) public key in runtime. > > It is not defined by PSA Attestation API spec. It was designed for test > purpose only but was always enabled in Initial Attestation service. > > > > TF-M regression tests called tfm_initial_attest_get_public_key() in > runtime to retrieve IAK public key to verify the Initial Attestation Token > (IAK) generated by Initial Attestation service. > > However, such a test implementation doesn’t fully align with common > attestation protocols, in which the public key is usually distributed to > the verifier when the device is deployed or registered. > > This API can be misleading and it concerned developers that it may be > abused in actual production. > > Can you detail the use case(s) where you feel deriving the public key inside TF-M or the NS firmware can be abused? Personally, I find it quite useful to be able to generate the IAK randomly and retrieve the public key, which can safely be provided to the NS application to be passed on the end users. Providing the IAK public-key during factory provisioning assumes a very specific workflow that I don't think every TF-M product is likely to adopt. There are many other instances where we don't scrupulously follow the PSA APIs, so I'm not sure why this example should be highlighted, and what seems like a useful feature to me removed. If you can help me better understand the security concerns here, though, I can of course be persuaded otherwise! Best regards, Kevin

3 years, 6 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Building for Musca B1 with proxy service

by Chris.Brand＠infineon.com

Thanks for the quick response! That build now works for me. Chris From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David Hu via TF-M Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 7:55 AM To: Mark Horvath <Mark.Horvath(a)arm.com>; Brand Chris (CSCA CSS ICW SW PSW 1) <Chris.Brand(a)infineon.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Building for Musca B1 with proxy service 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>. The fix is merged. Thanks to Chris for reporting this issue. Also thanks to Mark for such a quick fix. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Mark Horvath via TF-M Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 2:59 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Chris.Brand(a)infineon.com<mailto:Chris.Brand@infineon.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Building for Musca B1 with proxy service Hi Chris, The build failure is a regression caused by moving the arm platforms under arm directory. Here is the patch to fix it: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/10333 No need to pass artifacts from SE build to SSE-200 build, and the warning about the redefinition is not nice, but that does not cause any issue. Best regards, Mark ________________________________ 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: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:34 PM 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] Building for Musca B1 with proxy service Hi, I'm trying to build for the Musca B1 with the proxy service. I understand that I have to two separate builds, one for the secure_enclave and one for the SSE-200. The secure enclave build works fine, but I'm getting errors for the SSE-200 build and my various attempts to get around them have all failed. I'm (also) wondering if there are artifacts form the secure_enclave build that need to feed into the SSE-200 build somehow, and if so how that works. Here's my command line and resulting errors: cmake -S . -B build_musca_sse200_GNUARM_Relwithdebinfo '-GUnix Makefiles' -DTFM_PLATFORM=arm/musca_b1/sse_200 -DTFM_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Relwithdebinfo -DTFM_PSA_API=ON -DFORWARD_PROT_MSG=ON In file included from /lhome/cbrand/work/trees_2/psoc6_atfm/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/target/arm/musca_b1/sse_200/bl0/bl0_main.c:17:0: /lhome/cbrand/work/trees_2/psoc6_atfm/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/target/arm/musca_b1/sse_200/Device/Include/cmsis.h:63:10: fatal error: core_cm33.h: No such file or directory #include <core_cm33.h> /*!< Arm Cortex-M33 processor and core peripherals */ ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ compilation terminated. /lhome/cbrand/work/trees_2/psoc6_atfm/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/target/arm/musca_b1/sse_200/Device/Source/gcc/startup_cmsdk_musca_bl2.S:20:10: fatal error: tfm_plat_config.h: No such file or directory #include "tfm_plat_config.h" ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ compilation terminated. In file included from /lhome/cbrand/work/trees_2/psoc6_atfm/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/target/arm/musca_b1/sse_200/Device/Include/platform_description.h:23:0, from /lhome/cbrand/work/trees_2/psoc6_atfm/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/target/arm/musca_b1/sse_200/Device/Source/system_core_init.c:23: /lhome/cbrand/work/trees_2/psoc6_atfm/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/target/arm/musca_b1/sse_200/Device/Include/cmsis.h:63:10: fatal error: core_cm33.h: No such file or directory #include <core_cm33.h> /*!< Arm Cortex-M33 processor and core peripherals */ ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ compilation terminated. /lhome/cbrand/work/trees_2/psoc6_atfm/trusted-firmware-m/platform/ext/target/arm/musca_b1/sse_200/Device/Source/device_definition.c:29:10: fatal error: tfm_plat_defs.h: No such file or directory #include "tfm_plat_defs.h" ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ compilation terminated. [...] <command-line>:0:0: warning: "FORWARD_PROT_MSG" redefined <command-line>:0:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition <command-line>:0:0: warning: "FORWARD_PROT_MSG" redefined <command-line>:0:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition <command-line>:0:0: warning: "FORWARD_PROT_MSG" redefined <command-line>:0:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition <command-line>:0:0: warning: "FORWARD_PROT_MSG" redefined <command-line>:0:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition <command-line>:0:0: warning: "FORWARD_PROT_MSG" redefined <command-line>:0:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition <command-line>:0:0: warning: "FORWARD_PROT_MSG" redefined <command-line>:0:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition [...] platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/build.make:86: recipe for target 'platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/bl0_main.o' failed gmake[2]: *** [platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/bl0_main.o] Error 1 gmake[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/build.make:138: recipe for target 'platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/__/Device/Source/system_core_init.o' failed gmake[2]: *** [platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/__/Device/Source/system_core_init.o] Error 1 platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/build.make:125: recipe for target 'platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/__/Device/Source/device_definition.o' failed gmake[2]: *** [platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/__/Device/Source/device_definition.o] Error 1 platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/build.make:81: recipe for target 'platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/__/Device/Source/gcc/startup_cmsdk_musca_bl2.o' failed gmake[2]: *** [platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/__/Device/Source/gcc/startup_cmsdk_musca_bl2.o] Error 1 CMakeFiles/Makefile2:2539: recipe for target 'platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/all' failed gmake[1]: *** [platform/target/bl0/CMakeFiles/bl0.dir/all] Error 2 gmake[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... This is from a clean checkout of 54d47fbd5269 (current HEAD). I see that my tree does contain platform/ext/cmsis/core_cm33.h, platform/include/tfm_plat_config.h and platform/include/tfm_plat_defs.h so I guess it's the include paths that are messed up somehow...? Thanks, 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

1
0
0 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M