- TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

Re: [TF-M] Factory provisioning with tf-m

by Shebu Varghese Kuriakose

Hi Poppy, In the roadmap, provisioning service is noted incase there is any standard provisioning mechanism that PSA defines in future. There is no plans around provisioning at this point. It is upto the platform to generate the keys and provision it securely on the device which TF-M can make use of. On Arm reference platforms, MuscaB1 and MuscaS1, the HUK, IAK are generated in Cryptocell-312. HUK, IAK private keys and ROTPK are provisioned in the OTP of CC-312. The hardcoding of keys in TF-M is just for development purposes and not to be used in production environment. Provisioning the attestation key in the secure region of the embedded flash might be acceptable. Experts in the list can comment. Regards, Shebu From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Edward Yang via TF-M Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 10:04 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Factory provisioning with tf-m Hi, I would like to know about how to use tf-m with factory provisioning,for example,HUK,IAK,ROTPK these ROT assets should be injected to device via factory provisioning,besides,application specific certificates and private keys can also be injected during this procedure,in tf-m roadmap,there is a provision service,what's the functionality of this service? In initial attestation service, attest_register_initial_attestation_key() calls tfm_plat_get_symmetric_iak() to get IAK, I found implementation template of tfm_plat_get_symmetric_iak() just copys hardcoded key value(for developer mode). I think this is not allowed in production mode.Is there any recommended implementation of this API? What if I stored IAK in a specific address of MCU embedded flash during factory provisioning, such as #define IAK_REGION IAK_base_addr in flash_layout.h,and then use flash.read get the key value？ tfm_plat_get_symmetric_iak( ) { TFM_HAL_ITS_FLASH_DRIVER.ReadData(IAK_REGION, buff, size); } Best Regards, Poppy Wu Macronix Microelectronics (Suzhou) Co.,Ltd Http: //www.mxic.com.cn CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Macronix International Co., Ltd. =====================================================================

4 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation

by David Hu

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> On Behalf Of Suresh Marisetty via TF-M Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 6:04 AM To: Tamas Ban <Tamas.Ban(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)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.pdf https://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

4 years, 4 months

2
1
0 0

Factory provisioning with tf-m

by Edward Yang

Hi, I would like to know about how to use tf-m with factory provisioning,for example,HUK,IAK,ROTPK these ROT assets should be injected to device via factory provisioning,besides,application specific certificates and private keys can also be injected during this procedure,in tf-m roadmap,there is a provision service,what's the functionality of this service? In initial attestation service, attest_register_initial_attestation_key() calls tfm_plat_get_symmetric_iak() to get IAK, I found implementation template of tfm_plat_get_symmetric_iak() just copys hardcoded key value(for developer mode). I think this is not allowed in production mode.Is there any recommended implementation of this API? What if I stored IAK in a specific address of MCU embedded flash during factory provisioning, such as #define IAK_REGION IAK_base_addr in flash_layout.h,and then use flash.read get the key value？ tfm_plat_get_symmetric_iak( ) { TFM_HAL_ITS_FLASH_DRIVER.ReadData(IAK_REGION, buff, size); } Best Regards, Poppy Wu Macronix Microelectronics (Suzhou) Co.,Ltd Http: //www.mxic.com.cn ============================================================================ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Macronix International Co., Ltd. =====================================================================

4 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - May 13

by Anton Komlev

Hi, The agenda for the forum today: 1. How to use docker to build TFM on Windows and Linux by Hugo L'hostis 2. Linker script/scatter file templating (preliminary and tentative) 3. AOB Regards, Anton From: docker to build TFM on windows and Linux (It should take 10 to 15 minutes). <Hugo.Lhostis(a)arm.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 10:36 AM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: RE: Technical Forum call - May 13 Hi Anton, I would like to speak about using docker to build TFM on windows and Linux (It should take 10 to 15 minutes). Best regards, Hugo 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: 06 May 2021 19:20 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] Technical Forum call - May 13 Hi, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, May 13, 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

4 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Firmware update API - MCUboot update

by Suresh.Marisetty＠infineon.com

Hi, I would like to see if there is any guidance/documentation on how to coordinate between the firmware update services API with that of MCUboot. Does the use of this API make the MCUboot update services redundant? thanks Suresh Marisetty Infineon Semiconductor Corporation Lead Member of Technical Staff CYSC CSS ICW SW SSE Mobile: +5103863997 Suresh.Marisetty(a)infineon.com<mailto:Suresh.Marisetty@infineon.com>

4 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Questions on Musca-B1 SE implementation

by Tamas Ban

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> On Behalf Of Suresh Marisetty via TF-M Sent: 2021. április 29., csütörtök 21:49 To: tf-m(a)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.pdf https://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

4 years, 4 months

2
1
0 0

Security vulnerability notice - abort() function may not take effect in TF-M Crypto multi-part operations

by David Wang

Hi Everyone, This email is a notification of a new security vulnerability reported to TF-M. It's about the Crypto service in TF-M - abort() function may not take effect in TF-M Crypto multi-part MAC/hashing/cipher operations. Please check the details in the security advisory attached. (.rst version is coming soon) The fix has been merged on the latest master branch - Crypto: Remove unnecessary multi-part operation clean-up (I9cd0fa38) * Gerrit Code Review (trustedfirmware.org)<https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/9932> We're planning a hot fix release. Will share the plan with you when it's ready. Thanks. Regards, David Wang ARM Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Phone: +86-21-6154 9142 (ext. 59142)

4 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

[RFC] Overall Secure Partition Management (SPM) design document

by Ken Liu

Hi everyone, SPM came at the begging of the project, so the design document was spread into several small pieces as features. Now it is a chance to provide an overall document as we are going to have significant feature updates for FFM 1.1. Here is the draft of the design document: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/9928 This document is trying to address the overall design for 1.1 much. It based on FFM 1.1 update alpha stage document. Several points: * I want to publish this document public earlier for a quick taste, even though some features are not introduced yet (such as MMIOVEC), so there defecation would be some missing items, and I would keep updating recently. * Meanwhile, I would collect feedbacks from you and update them into the design document, too. * Prototype would be performed to see the situation. * In this document I am trying to tell the conclusion directly instead of go over the conceptual items described in FF-M. If you can not find background either in this document or in the specification please tell me, I would try to add the missing part. Or if you think some text is quite redundant, tell me and I would remove the without hesitation. The 1.1 specification (alpha): https://developer.arm.com/documentation/aes0039/latest Please provide your feedback - both mailing list and patch are welcome (in the patch is more welcome, as there may be long discussions so patch comment is easier to be tracked). Thanks! /Ken

4 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - May 13

by Ken Liu

Hi Anton, I would like to discuss the linker script integration things, would summarized the situation and potential improvement plan. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 2:20 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - May 13 Hi, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, May 13, 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

4 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Technical Forum call - May 13

by Anton Komlev

Hi, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, May 13, 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

4 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M